harmonic_analysis

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 'calculate basic Fourier coefficients', which hints at a computational operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it has side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about how the tool behaves beyond its stated purpose.

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 with two short sentences and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parenthetical domain/category could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficiently structured.

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 complexity of harmonic analysis with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any constraints (e.g., array lengths must match). For a tool with mathematical computations, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what these parameters mean (e.g., what 'fundamental_freq' represents, how 'harmonics' and 'amplitudes' arrays relate). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

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 'Analyze harmonic content and calculate basic Fourier coefficients', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'analyze' entails or what 'basic' means. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: wave_analysis', but this is vague and doesn't clearly differentiate from other wave-related tools like 'fourier_coefficients_basic' or 'wave_amplitude_analysis' in the sibling list.

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?

There are no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The domain/category tags imply a context of trigonometry and wave analysis, but this is too broad to guide selection among the many sibling tools in those categories. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons are provided.

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