compute_power_spectral_density

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses the method (Welch's), the return of a spectrum_id and compact summary, but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or prerequisites. The description adds some context but is 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with key information. No wasted words. Could potentially add a bit more detail without becoming verbose, but currently it is efficient.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It mentions the primary output but does not elaborate on the 'compact summary' or provide additional context for parameter choices. With moderate complexity, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics; it merely repeats the tool's purpose. The schema already documents each parameter sufficiently.

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 it computes PSD using Welch's method, and mentions it's better for noisy signals and trend analysis than a raw FFT. However, it does not differentiate well from sibling tools like compute_spectrum or compute_envelope_spectrum, which may also be used for spectral analysis.

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 a usage hint (better for noisy signals/trend analysis) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings, nor when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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