rew_analyze_room_modesAnalyzes room measurements to detect modal peaks and nulls, optionally matching them to theoretical room modes from room dimensions for acoustic diagnosis.
Analyze a measurement for room modes, peaks, and nulls. Optionally correlates detected issues with theoretical room modes based on room dimensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| measurement_id | Yes | ||
| analysis_options | No | ||
| room_dimensions_m | 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 disclosure burden and falls short. It never states whether the analysis is read-only or persists results, what the output contains, how thresholds affect detection, or any limits on the frequency range; only the optional-correlation behavior is disclosed.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification given the nested parameter structure.
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 three-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation. The main action and the optional correlation path are covered, but threshold semantics, units, and result shape are left entirely to inference.
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% with three parameters including two nested objects, and the description does not compensate. It never explains measurement_id, the meaning and defaults of peak_threshold_db/null_threshold_db, the frequency_range_hz pair, or that room dimensions are in meters and all three axes are required.
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 and resource: analyze a measurement for room modes, peaks, and nulls, with optional theoretical correlation from room dimensions. It is clearly distinct from ingest/compare/average siblings, but does not distinguish itself from closely related analysis tools like rew_analyze_room, rew_analyze_decay, or rew_analyze_impulse.
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 only implied: the phrase 'optionally correlates ... based on room dimensions' hints that room_dimensions_m is supplied when theoretical matching is wanted, which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over rew_analyze_room or rew_optimize_room, and no prerequisites (e.g., measurement must already be ingested) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.