plot_spectrum

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 states the output (standalone HTML file) which is useful, but doesn't disclose whether the file is saved to disk, written to a temp location, returned as a path, or how it relates to session state. For a rendering tool with zero annotation support, this is a meaningful gap.

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, tight sentence with meaningful content (power spectrum, band composition, standalone HTML). It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could have used space for usage guidance the description lacks.

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 tool has an output schema (context signal 'Has output schema: true'), which covers return-value explanation. With modest complexity (5 params, all schema-documented) and no annotations, the description plus schema is adequate but not rich. The description doesn't clarify the HTML-file disposition or relationship to plot_stream, leaving room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and the 'filtered' boolean semantic. The description adds marginal value beyond this — the 'longer gives finer frequency resolution' note on seconds is in the schema already. The description itself lists no parameter details, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 'Render the power spectrum and band composition as a standalone HTML file' uses a specific verb (render) and clear resource (power spectrum and band composition) with a notable output detail (standalone HTML). It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'plot_stream' or 'get_psd'/'get_band_power' tools, though the HTML output format distinguishes it from the data-returning siblings.

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 use this vs alternatives. Sibling tools like get_psd, get_band_power, and plot_stream serve related purposes but the description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction. The HTML output implies a visualization-on-disk use case that distinguishes it, but this is only implicit.

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