rew_analyze_decayAnalyze decay characteristics from impulse response data to pinpoint frequencies with excessive ringing or resonance using ISO 3382 T20/T30/EDT calculations.
Analyze decay characteristics from impulse response data to identify frequencies with excessive ringing or resonance. Implements ISO 3382 compliant T20/T30/EDT calculations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| measurement_id | Yes | ||
| frequency_range_hz | No | ||
| decay_threshold_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool computes ISO 3382 T20/T30/EDT and identifies ringing/resonance, but it does not describe whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it mutates stored data, or any performance/authorization constraints.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose and standards are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool computes.
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?
For a multi-parameter analysis tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It explains the analysis concept but leaves the agent without parameter guidance or any sense of the result format.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters: measurement_id, frequency_range_hz, or decay_threshold_seconds. The schema itself defines types, ranges, and defaults, but the description adds no meaning about how these parameters affect the decay analysis.
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 verb (analyze) and resource (decay characteristics from impulse response data), plus the practical goal of finding excessive ringing or resonance. It also names the ISO 3382 T20/T30/EDT calculations, which makes the scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analysis tools such as rew_analyze_impulse or rew_analyze_room_modes.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'from impulse response data' and the focus on decay characteristics, so an agent can infer this is for post-measurement decay analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison to sibling analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.