rew_analyze_measurement

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the explicit statement that results are descriptive extrema rather than causal diagnosis or EQ prescriptions. That is genuinely useful behavioral framing, but it omits what statistics are produced, units, or how the frequency range is applied.

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, capability stated first and the interpretive guardrail second, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema and a nested, undocumented 'query' parameter, the definition is only partially adequate: an agent knows the general intent but not what statistics come back or how to shape the query object. The absence of an output schema puts more weight on the description than it bears.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies meaning for min_hz/max_hz via 'over a frequency range'; measurement_id and the nested 'query' object receive no explanation at all.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource: 'Calculate response statistics over a frequency range', which is clearly distinct from raw retrieval siblings like rew_get_measurement. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 never says when to prefer this over rew_get_measurement or rew_export_measurement, nor any prerequisite such as needing a measurement_id first. The only constraint offered ('without inferring acoustic causes or inventing EQ') governs how to read the output, not when to call the tool.

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