fourier_coefficients_basic

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 mentions 'basic' and 'common waveforms,' hinting at limitations, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as supported waveform types, computational constraints, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could benefit from additional clarifying details without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (Fourier analysis), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any assumptions about input validity, leaving the agent with inadequate information for effective use.

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 0% description coverage, with parameters 'waveform' and 'n_terms' undocumented. The description does not add any semantic details about these parameters, such as valid waveform strings or the meaning of 'n_terms.' This lack of information fails to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.

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 the tool 'Calculate basic Fourier series coefficients for common waveforms,' which provides a clear verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Fourier series coefficients'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fourier_series_approximation' or 'harmonic_analysis,' leaving the scope vague regarding what 'basic' and 'common waveforms' entail.

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 includes a domain ('trigonometry') and category ('wave_analysis'), which imply context but do not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios for application, resulting in minimal usage direction.

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