rew_probe

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Check') but does not state whether it modifies anything, what happens if the API is unavailable, or what the response format is. It adds minimal context beyond the raw action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing brevity.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks essential context: what exactly is returned, what constitutes an 'inventory of live measurements', and how it behaves under failures. Without annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

There is one optional parameter (timeoutMs) with schema constraints (default, min, max) but 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The parameter name and constraints provide some self-evident meaning, but the description adds no value.

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 clear verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('local REW API'), but 'inventory live measurements' is ambiguous—it could mean listing measurements or simply verifying their presence. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like rew_audio_inventory or rew_capability_negotiate, which also deal with API/inventory status.

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 the many sibling tools. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The one-line description gives no context about typical scenarios or exclusions.

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