rew_level_ladder_plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only planning operation, what side effects may occur, whether files are saved or modified, or any required setup. The phrase 'protected separately retained' hints at some retention behavior but is not explained, leaving the agent entirely in the dark.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, but brevity is not conciseness when essential information is missing. It is a single sentence that fails to define key terms or operations. The lack of structure means the agent cannot extract actionable requirements.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity—13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a niche domain—the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a 'level ladder' is, what the 'plan' produces, how it relates to other REW tools, or what the agent must provide. The agent would be guessing at nearly every aspect of invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description lists no parameters or their meanings. With 13 parameters (6 required), the agent has no guidance beyond raw schema definitions. The description does not help interpret 'levelsDbfs', 'sweepLength', 'timingReference', or any other parameter, making correct parameter selection highly uncertain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Plan' and refers to 'distortion/compression sweeps at several levels for one channel,' but the phrase 'protected separately retained' is opaque and the intended output or action remains unclear. It does not sufficiently differentiate from sibling planning tools like rew_generate_trace_plan or rew_measurement_plan, which also plan audio sweeps. The meaning is too vague to guide an agent reliably.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for invocation. With many sibling plan tools, the agent cannot determine why this specific planning tool should be chosen over others. The description gives no hint of prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.