compute_spectrum

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions returning a spectrum_id and compact summary but does not disclose whether the signal is stored permanently, computational cost, side effects, or safety (e.g., idempotent). Minimal behavioral context beyond what schema implies.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. 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?

The description covers basic purpose and output usage but lacks guidance on when to choose this over similar sibling tools (e.g., compute_power_spectral_density) and what 'compact summary' contains. Adequate but gaps remain.

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 adds 'preferred over raw array' for signal_id, which adds value, but otherwise does not explain parameter meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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 the single-sided amplitude spectrum (FFT) of a current signal, specifying the output (spectrum_id and top peaks summary). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on current signal amplitude spectrum and downstream fault-detection use.

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 fault detection ('Use spectrum_id in downstream fault-detection tools') and recommends signal_id over raw array, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like compute_envelope_spectrum or compute_power_spectral_density.

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