Compare REW Measurements

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it conveys that this is a comparative analysis returning directional findings (improved/worsened/unchanged), which is useful behavioral context. However, it never states that it is read-only and non-destructive, nor what it does with more than two measurements or how a baseline is chosen, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first defines the operation and its result, the second enumerates supported modes. No filler, though the second sentence drifts into enumerating schema values rather than adding new information.

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 four-parameter analytical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It says nothing about the baseline/reference parameter, the frequency-range scoping, the ten-measurement cap, or what the result looks like, so an agent could call it correctly only by reverse-engineering the schema.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters, but it only echoes 'two or more' (matching minItems=2) and loosely gestures at comparison_type values. The critical reference_measurement_id (the baseline) and frequency_range_hz (constraining the comparison band) are never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Compare two or more REW measurements') plus the outcome it produces ('what improved, worsened, or stayed the same'). It implicitly separates this from siblings like rew_average_measurements and rew_compare_to_target, but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It lists three scenarios ('pre/post GLM comparison, placement comparisons, and L/R symmetry analysis'), which hints at when the tool applies, but these largely restate enum values rather than giving selection guidance. The fourth enum value (with_without_sub) is omitted, and there is no when-not guidance or prerequisite such as measurements needing to be ingested first.

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