Unified Room Analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantive behavior: it returns the top 5 recommendations and reveals the ranking formula (60% fixability + 40% severity), plus that missing optional inputs are handled gracefully. It omits any statement about read-only/analysis-only nature, cost, or failure modes for invalid measurement IDs.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The scoring formula could be trimmed, but it is informative rather than wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return shape (top 5 prioritized recommendations) and the optional-input fallback. For a six-parameter aggregating analysis tool this is nearly sufficient, with sibling disambiguation the main omission.

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 100%, so all six parameters including the nested room_dimensions object are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. 'Automatically handles missing optional inputs' adds mild behavioral meaning about omitting optional IDs, but it largely duplicates what the schema already says for pre_measurement_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Comprehensive room analysis') and enumerates the four analyses it fuses: peaks/nulls, room modes, sub integration, and L/R symmetry. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as rew_analyze_room_modes or rew_optimize_room, so an agent cannot tell purely from the text which to choose.

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 word 'comprehensive' implies this is the do-everything analysis rather than the single-purpose siblings, but that inference is left to the agent. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance.

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