rew_measurement_execute

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool restores REW state after execution and that it checks audible/readiness flags, which gives some insight into side effects and safety. However, it does not mention potential failures, permissions required, whether it is destructive, or what the output/result is. The 'protected' qualifier is vague. This is a partial but insufficient disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the mandatory flags are stated concisely. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

This is a complex tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what a 'sweep plan' is, how to supply it, what each flag means, what the confirmationToken is for, or what the tool returns. It also lacks usage context relative to the many sibling tools. The description is grossly incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at two concepts (audible confirmation and physical readiness) without mapping them to specific parameters (confirm, areaClear, micPlaced, confirmationToken). It does not explain the 'plan' object structure or the purpose of confirmationToken. This is inadequate compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('exact protected sweep plan'), then lists follow-up actions (label, save, restore). It is clear what the tool does at a high level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling measurement tools like rew_generate_trace_execute or rew_diagnostic_execute, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.

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?

The description mentions mandatory audible confirmation and physical readiness flags, implying prerequisites, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what preparation is needed (e.g., a plan from rew_measurement_plan). No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are given. The guidance is purely implicit.

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