rew_multiseat_analysis

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 doesn't indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires specific input data, has side effects, or what the output looks like. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap for a complex analysis tool.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it lacks structure and detail. It lists multiple analysis aspects without elaboration, so while not verbose, it doesn't earn its place by providing actionable information.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, input expectations, or return values, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

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. It mentions 'optional Schroeder frequency' hinting at rt60Seconds and roomVolumeM3 but doesn't explain the roles of ids, lowHz, highHz, or the exact mapping. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 verb 'Analyze' and specifies the resources: multi-seat consistency, modal candidates, seat outliers, and Schroeder frequency. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like rew_crossover_analysis or rew_direct_late_analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 other analysis tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what it analyzes, not when it should be selected.

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