Check REW Input Levels

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the returned zone taxonomy (Clipping, Hot, Optimal, Low, Very Low) and the non-obvious blocking behavior for clipping/very low conditions, but omits whether it needs an active REW connection, whether it is a one-shot snapshot or continuous read, and how long a reading takes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return values, then the blocking constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema check tool, the description covers purpose, the categorical return values, and the blocking outcome, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is operational context (connection requirement, snapshot vs live) that an agent would need before invoking it.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (type, default -12, min -60, max 0 all documented in the schema), the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions target_rms or how a different target changes the zone boundaries, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Check input levels') and scopes it to 'mic gain calibration', so the agent knows this is a pre-measurement gain check rather than a measurement or SPL calibration call. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as rew_api_spl_meter or rew_api_calibrate_spl to route between them, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 context is implied ('for mic gain calibration') and the blocking rule hints at when results are actionable, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus rew_api_spl_meter or rew_api_calibrate_spl, and no prerequisites (REW connection, active audio input) are given.

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