calculate_schroeder_frequency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a pure, side-effect-free computation, nor does it give the output unit (Hz) or note that the RT60 parameter has a default, leaving key call expectations unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and then defines the term. Slightly dense with the parenthetical, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should have covered the return value and assumptions (e.g., output in Hz, dependence on the supplied RT60 estimate). It alludes to 'four operational acoustic regimes' without explaining them or how the result is used, leaving an agent with a partially informed picture.

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 all four parameters fully described in the schema, including units, bounds, and the RT60 default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Computes the Schroeder cutoff frequency') and adds a parenthetical definition distinguishing it from plain room-mode calculation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling calculate_room_modes, but the defined concept is specific enough to be identifiable.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over calculate_room_modes or calculate_rt60_reverb_time, despite the definition depending conceptually on both. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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