Control REW Signal Generator

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls well short: it does not state that 'start' produces audible output, that level_db up to 0 dBFS can be dangerously loud, whether actions persist after the call, or what a session/connection requirement looks like. Only the mutation-vs-read nature of each action is vaguely inferable from the action names.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by the action inventory. The duplication of the action enum is mildly redundant but keeps the definition a compact one-screen read.

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?

The description is enough to form a call given the fully documented schema, but for an unannotated audio-emitting tool with no output schema it omits the connection prerequisite, any warning about output level, and what 'status'/'list_signals' return. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps.

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% — each parameter already documents its purpose, bounds, and applicable action, and signal examples are listed in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that (its action enumeration duplicates the enum), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Control REW signal generator via API') and enumerates the signal types produced (tones, pink noise, sweeps) plus the full action set, so an agent can immediately tell this is the signal-generation tool rather than a measurement or EQ one. It stops short of 5 only because the action list merely restates the schema enum and no sibling is explicitly named as an alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says whether rew_api_connect must be established first, whether 'status' should be called before 'start', or that 'set_signal'/'set_level'/'set_frequency' are configuration steps that precede 'start'. The action list implies possible operations but leaves sequencing and prerequisites to inference.

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