rew_measurement_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Guarded' is never defined, and the description omits any details about side effects, constraints, return structure, or safety implications. The tool name implies a planning action, but its actual behavior is opaque.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately compact. It omits essential details and does not front-load useful context beyond the basic action. Conciseness without substance does not earn a higher score.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the plan contains, what 'guarded' constrains, or how it integrates with the execution flow. An agent cannot infer correct usage or expected behavior from this description alone.

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%, meaning the description adds no explanation for any of the 13 parameters. Terms like startHz, endHz, maxSplDb, and levelDbfs are left entirely to the schema's type/enum constraints, which are insufficient for an agent to understand their purpose. The description fails to compensate for this gap.

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 clearly states it creates a REW sweep plan for speaker, car, or laptop contexts. The verb 'create' and resource 'plan' are specific, and it distinguishes from execution tools (e.g., rew_measurement_execute) by the word 'plan'. However, 'guarded' is vague and not explained, though the core purpose is comprehensible.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a planning step before execution, nor does it reference any specific sibling tools or contexts where it would be preferred. With many plan tools in the sibling list, the agent lacks explicit routing information.

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