oscillation_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 analyzing properties but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the tool returns (e.g., numerical results, plots, or error handling), computational complexity, or any limitations (e.g., assumptions of simple harmonic motion). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. It efficiently states the purpose and context in a single sentence. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but overall it's appropriately sized.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool outputs, how parameters interact, or any assumptions (e.g., linear damping). For a tool with multiple inputs and no structured guidance, more context is needed to ensure proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (amplitude, frequency, phase, damping, mass) but doesn't explain their meanings, units, or roles in the analysis. Without this, users may not understand how to provide correct inputs, making the tool less usable.

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 simple harmonic motion and oscillation properties', which provides a general purpose (analyzing oscillations) but lacks specificity about what analysis it performs (e.g., calculating period, energy, or other derived properties). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its domain (trigonometry) and category (applications), but doesn't clearly differentiate its exact function from other mathematical tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: applications', which implies a context but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'spring_oscillation' or 'harmonic_analysis' in the sibling list. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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