compute_fault_frequencies

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a non-destructive computation but does not explicitly state lack of side effects or permissions needed. Adequate for a calculation tool, but could be more transparent about safety (e.g., read-only, no data mutation).

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details, then usage hint. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present, no need to explain return values. Covers fault types and usage context. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., motor parameters) or that it is specific to induction motors, but overall sufficient for a compute tool.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing fault types. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'expected fault frequencies' with specific fault types (broken rotor bars, eccentricity, stator faults). Distinguishes from sibling detection tools by focusing on frequency computation rather than fault detection.

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?

Provides an explicit usage hint: 'Use these frequencies to know WHERE to look in the current spectrum.' This implies it is a preprocessing step for spectral analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like detect_broken_rotor_bars, though the distinction is clear.

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