compute_band_energy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authorization, or modifies state. For a computation tool, one might assume it's safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 paragraphs: one for purpose, one for context. No wasted words, front-loads the key action.

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?

With 5 parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the core idea but could be more explicit about how the energy is computed (e.g., integrates the PSD). It assumes domain knowledge that may not be universal.

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%, establishing good baseline. The description adds value by recommending 'spectrum_id' over raw arrays and specifying the bandwidth default. This enhances the schema's information.

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 it computes integrated spectral energy in a frequency band, and mentions its use as a fault/cavitation indicator. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like compute_power_spectral_density or compute_spectrum.

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?

It's described as useful for fault/cavitation indication, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., find_spectrum_peaks, detect_bearing_faults). No exclusions or prerequisites.

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