wave_equation

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 'Generate points' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format (e.g., list of coordinates, time series), computational complexity, error handling, or default behaviors (e.g., wave_type defaults to 'sine'). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear main purpose in the first phrase. The additional domain/category context is brief and relevant. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative 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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a tool that generates data points, more context on the return format (e.g., array of (x,y) pairs) and usage is needed to be complete.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what parameters like 'amplitude', 'frequency', or 'wave_type' represent, their units, valid ranges, or interactions. For example, it does not clarify that 'duration' might be in seconds or that 'sample_rate' is in Hz, leaving parameters semantically ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate points for a sinusoidal wave equation.' It specifies the action (generate points) and the resource (sinusoidal wave equation), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wave_amplitude_analysis' or 'wave_interference', which are related but distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions domain and category but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate whether this is for simulation, visualization, or analysis, or how it differs from other wave-related tools in the sibling list.

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