detect_broken_rotor_bars

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it computes a fault index and returns a classification, but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, modifies stored data, or has any side effects. Since it accepts spectrum IDs or raw arrays but does not clarify that it does not alter them, transparency is lacking.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains computation and output. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action, and efficient for agent parsing.

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 7 parameters, 0 required, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context about typical usage flow (e.g., needing a spectrum from compute_spectrum), relationship to sibling tools, and what the output schema contains. Could be more complete for an agent new to the domain.

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 algorithmic context (sideband calculation, relative to fundamental) that helps interpret the roles of supply_freq, poles, rotor_speed_rpm, and tolerance_hz, improving parameter understanding 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 the tool detects broken rotor bar faults from current spectrum, specifies the computational method using sidebands at (1 ± 2s)·f_s, and lists the severity classifications. This distinguishes it from sibling fault detection tools like detect_bearing_faults or detect_stator_faults.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_bearing_faults or run_full_diagnosis. The description does not mention prerequisites, required data sources, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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