mxa_optimize_range

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating that the tool automatically adjusts attenuation and reference level, which goes beyond the annotation (destructiveHint: false). It does not detail side effects or prerequisites, but it provides sufficient behavioral insight for a non-destructive tool.

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 a single concise sentence and is front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, but could include brief parameter information without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's two undocumented parameters and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the output represents. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter details make it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (alias, params_json) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain these parameters or their usage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to configure the optimization. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: optimizing power range by automatically adjusting attenuation and reference level. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mxa_set_attenuation and mxa_set_ref_level, which perform manual adjustments.

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 description provides clear context that the tool is for automatic optimization of power range, implying it should be used when automatic adjustment is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as manual settings via sibling tools. This lack of exclusions keeps it at a 4.

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