Control REW Measurements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact - automated sweep measurements require a REW Pro license. However, it says nothing about side effects (a sweep/spl action emits audible test signals), whether cancel aborts an in-flight measurement, or whether configure persists between calls, which matters for a trigger-style tool.

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 purpose and followed by the action list and the license caveat; there is no filler. It could be improved by thematically grouping the action list so the missed actions are visible rather than enumerating a partial set.

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 tool with a nested config object, no annotations, no output schema, and eight enum actions, the description is only partially complete: it explains the license constraint but not what status returns, what configure changes, or how the three undocumented actions behave. The 100% schema coverage offsets the parameter gap, but the action-set omission and absent return/behavior notes leave real holes.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light mapping meaning ('status (get config)', 'sweep (trigger measurement)'), but it lists only 5 of the 8 enum actions - omitting protection, playback_mode, and measurement_mode - which are precisely the actions tied to the vaguely documented 'mode' and 'protection_options' parameters.

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 ('Control REW measurements via API') and enumerates concrete actions (status, sweep, spl, cancel, configure), which lets an agent grasp the tool's scope quickly. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings such as rew_api_measurement_commands, rew_api_measure_workflow, and rew_api_measurement_session, so the agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many measurement-related siblings, nor any stated preconditions beyond the REW Pro license note for automated sweeps. An agent has to infer from the name and action list that this is the low-level API control surface rather than the higher-level workflow tools.

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