Get REW Measurement

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuine behavioral signal — measurement identity is UUID-stable while indices are volatile — but omits that store_measurement defaults to true (a side effect that persists state), says nothing about permissions or API connectivity requirements, and does not characterize failure when the UUID is unknown.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the UUID caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested metadata object and no output schema, the description is thin: it explains the required identifier but not what is returned (frequency response magnitude/phase, optional impulse response) or what the metadata and smoothing options do to the result. An agent could call it correctly by identifier but would not know what payload to expect.

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 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment by explaining why measurement_uuid is the required key rather than an index. It does not touch the undocumented nested metadata object (notes, condition, speaker_id) or clarify the interplay of smoothing and include_ir.

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 ("Fetch a measurement directly from REW via API") and the "directly via API" phrasing implicitly separates it from the ingest/analysis siblings. It never names rew_api_list_measurements or rew_ingest_measurement, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 UUID-vs-index instruction is a clear usage rule for identifying the target, and the reason given (indices shift on add/remove) makes it actionable. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over rew_api_list_measurements for discovery or rew_ingest_measurement for importing, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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