Analyze Impulse Response

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the analysis is read-only, whether it mutates or caches anything, how long it takes, or what the result contains. It does describe the analytical outputs, which is genuinely useful, but that is purpose rather than behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the analysis and its three products with no filler. It could be slightly restructured to also expose parameter or usage context, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say more about the return shape, and with a nested options object at 0% description coverage the tuning parameters remain opaque. Against that, it does spell out the three analytical results, which covers the core of what is missing for a single-measurement analysis tool.

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%: measurement_id and the nested analysis_options fields (max_reflection_time_ms, reflection_threshold_db) have no descriptions, only types, defaults, and bounds. The description alludes to 'early reflections' but never explains how these thresholds or time windows control detection.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('analyze impulse response data') and enumerates three concrete outputs: early reflection detection, reflection path estimation, and sound-quality impact. It is clearly distinct from siblings like rew_analyze_decay or rew_analyze_room_modes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this analysis over rew_analyze_decay, rew_analyze_room_modes, or rew_analyze_room, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the measurement must first be ingested via rew_ingest_measurement. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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