rew_measurement_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'gate' implies an action (likely filtering or validating) but does not specify what happens on success or failure, whether the operation is read-only, or what side effects might occur. The list of criteria gives some context but lacks detail on outcomes or state changes.

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 concise (one sentence) but under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters and no other structured information. It lacks any structure like bullet points for criteria, examples, or a breakdown of inputs/outputs. While brevity is good, it sacrifices essential information needed to use the tool effectively.

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 high parameter count (12), lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the gating result, edge cases, or the meaning of parameters like expectedTraceCount or microphoneCalibrationHash. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on 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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanation. However, the description does not mention any parameter or how the listed criteria map to the 12 schema properties (e.g., snrDb, minSnrDb, stateFingerprint). It provides no semantic value beyond what the property names themselves hint at, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set parameters correctly.

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 the tool's action ('Gate live REW traces') and enumerates the criteria (coverage, clipping, SNR, repeatability, route state, DSP state, microphone-calibration identity). This makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like rew_trace or rew_measurement_*, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope compared to related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over other REW-related tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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