compute_time_frequency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two critical behaviors: (1) if target_freq_hz is provided, the tool tracks that frequency's amplitude over time, and (2) it returns a summary (not the full 2D matrix) to keep output manageable. This adds significant value beyond the input schema.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes unique information: the core operation, the use case, the optional frequency tracking, and output format caveat. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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's complexity (STFT, frequency tracking, summary output) and the presence of an output schema (indicated in context signals), the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral nuances. The output schema likely handles return value details, so this description is sufficiently complete.

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 meaning: precludes signal_id over raw array, notes auto-resolution of sampling_freq_hz when using signal_id, explains target_freq_hz tracks a specific frequency, and implies tolerance_hz is for tracking. This compensates well 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 STFT for time-frequency analysis, specifically for non-stationary conditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_spectrum (likely for stationary signals) and compute_power_spectral_density. The verb 'compute' and resource 'Short-Time Fourier Transform' are specific and unambiguous.

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 'For non-stationary conditions (variable speed/load, start-up transients)', providing clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the given context effectively guides the agent toward appropriate scenarios.

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