Measurement Session Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavior: session state persistence, resumability, and an REW Pro license requirement for automated measurements. It omits other behaviors that matter for a stateful measurement driver — whether measure blocks, session expiry/cleanup, what happens on failure mid-sequence, and whether concurrent sessions are allowed.

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 tightly packed sentences with the workflow purpose front-loaded and the action vocabulary immediately after. Slight redundancy in re-listing the actions that the schema enum already spells out, but nothing wasteful.

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 stateful, multi-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the happy path but not the return shape of get_status, the expected call sequence per channel, or recovery behavior. An agent could start correctly but would be guessing at progress semantics and completion criteria.

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% and the schema already documents action, channel (required for measure), notes (optional for start_session), and session_id (required except for start_session). The description largely restates the action enum rather than adding constraints such as whether session_id from a prior call is validated or what channels a single session supports. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("Guided L/R/Sub measurement workflow with session state") and enumerates the four actions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as rew_api_measure_workflow, rew_api_measure, or rew_api_measurement_commands, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 action list plus "sessions persist across tool calls and can be resumed" implies the lifecycle (start, measure repeatedly per channel, poll status, stop). But there is no explicit steering on when to prefer this over rew_api_measure_workflow or the plain rew_api_measure, and no prerequisite sequencing stated.

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