measure_ringing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm step-by-step (centre definition, radial profile, sign-change counting), output JSON structure, and the luminance formula. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, though 'measure' implies it.

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?

The description is dense and logically ordered: purpose, algorithm, output, formula. Each sentence carries technical substance with no filler, though it is longer than strictly necessary. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description fully explains the algorithm and return values (oscillations, max_amplitude, center, profile_sample), compensating for the lack of an output schema. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., empty region, brightness threshold) or failure modes, but given the tool's complexity, it is comparatively complete.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains min_amplitude as 'summed |derivative| of a run' and how it filters oscillations, and clarifies view_id as the target image. This algorithmic detail is not present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Measure concentric oscillation around the brightest region.' It provides detailed algorithmic context, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like measure_stars or measure_sharpness, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific measurement is intended.

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 its many siblings (e.g., measure_uniformity, measure_core_clipping). No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned; usage context must be inferred from the name and algorithm.

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