rew_repeated_session_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior and side effects, but it only says 'Plan'. It does not state whether planning is read-only, whether it modifies any state, whether it requires a running REW instance, or what the output structure looks like. It does not mention any computational cost or external dependencies. The term 'fingerprint' hints at a configuration snapshot, but this is not elaborated.

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 sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is a long, dense sentence that packs many concepts without clear structure or hierarchy. Front-loading the key idea ('Plan 4-6 traces') is good, but the trailing list of attributes is ambiguous and not broken down. It lacks the structured clarity that would aid an agent parsing it quickly.

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 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex planning scenario, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot determine the required parameters (beyond the obvious channels), the output format, the relationship to other planning tools, or any side effects. This is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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 unnamed parameters. The description mentions 'left, right, and combined' which maps to the 'channels' parameter, and possibly 'route, volume, DSP, microphone, preset, and sweep fingerprint' correspond to several parameters, but it does not explicitly link any parameter name or explain their formats, constraints, or interactions. With 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant 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 states a specific action ('Plan') and a specific object ('4-6 separately retained left, right, and combined traces') with a list of attributes (route, volume, DSP, microphone, preset, sweep fingerprint). This distinguishes it from generic 'plan' tools and suggests it is about a multi-channel repeated measurement session. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling planners like 'rew_measurement_plan' or 'rew_generate_trace_plan', so it is not fully unambiguous.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an existing REW session or prior configuration. It does not state when not to use it or direct the agent to a sibling (e.g., 'rew_measurement_plan' for a single measurement). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.

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