compute_envelope_spectrum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithmic steps (Hilbert transform, FFT) and purpose, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state) or input requirements beyond schema. Still, it gives sufficient behavioral context for a computational tool.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses three sentences to cover method and use case. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter by merging the algorithm and purpose sentences. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and no required fields, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, method, and typical application. The output schema covers return format, so no further detail needed. Description adequately informs selection and invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional insight into parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters like bandpass cutoffs relate to the algorithm, so no extra value.

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 computes envelope spectrum of a current signal using Hilbert transform and FFT. It distinctly specifies the resource (current signal) and action, differentiating it from sibling tools like compute_spectrum and compute_power_spectral_density which analyze different aspects.

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 explicitly mentions usefulness for detecting bearing and mechanical faults that modulate current at low frequencies, providing context for when to use. However, it does not directly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, missing full exclusion guidance.

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