compute_bearing_frequencies

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains normalised vs absolute frequencies and sidebands, but does not disclose any potential limitations, prerequisites (e.g., bearing geometry knowledge), or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose and list outputs. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the complexity of bearing frequencies, the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, and conditional behavior. It is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context (e.g., 'multiples of shaft speed') but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' followed by well-known bearing fault frequencies (BPFO, BPFI, BSF, FTF), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compute_fault_frequencies' (which is general) and 'detect_bearing_faults' (detection vs calculation).

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 implies use for computing bearing frequencies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'compute_fault_frequencies' or 'detect_bearing_faults'. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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