rew_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the trace is 'bounded', but does not explain what bound means (e.g., length, time range, or point count), nor does it mention read-only status, side effects, or return format. This minimal disclosure is inadequate for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy. The listing of trace types is efficient and adds value without verbosity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a moderate parameter set, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the 'bounded' nature, parameter roles, or the relationship to sibling trace tools. An agent would need to guess at id semantics and how to set ppo and smoothing correctly, making the description insufficient for confident 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 parameter meaning. It lists the trace kinds (matching the enum) but does not explain 'id', 'ppo', or 'smoothing'. The term 'bounded' hints at limits but not how ppo or smoothing affect the result. This leaves critical semantic gaps that the schema also fails to fill.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('a bounded REW ... trace'), and enumerates the supported trace types (magnitude/phase, group-delay, distortion, RT60, impulse). This distinguishes it from siblings like rew_generate_trace (which creates traces) and rew_load_file (which loads files), making the purpose 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving existing traces rather than generating them, nor does it reference sibling tools like rew_generate_trace or rew_load_file. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb 'fetch', which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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