get_psd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add behavioral context (it operates on the 'most recent window', uses filtered buffer by default per schema, returns capped bins). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, data volume, performance implications, or what happens when no session/stream is active. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Tight, front-loaded description with the single-sentence summary first, then targeted usage guidance. No wasted words. Could add a touch more behavioral detail, but what's written earns its place.

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 read-only analysis tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the intended use cases and the 'most recent window' semantic. It's adequate but doesn't detail edge cases like no-data or unset filter chains.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description reinforces key semantics ('most recent window' ties to seconds, frequency resolution ties to window length) but doesn't deeply elaborate beyond the schema. Given full coverage, this exceeds the baseline 3 by connecting the tool's purpose to parameter meaning.

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?

Clear verb+resource: computes 'Power spectral density over the most recent window.' It gives specific use cases (peak alpha, artifact confirmation, notch verification), distinguishing it from the sibling get_band_power. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like plot_spectrum, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides concrete scenarios for when to use it — 'when band power is too coarse' — implicitly naming get_band_power as the coarser alternative. This is clear context for when versus when-not, though it doesn't explicitly name plot_spectrum or other spectrum tools as siblings for comparison.

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