detect_eccentricity

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 mentions analyzing sidebands and returning severity classification, but lacks details on assumptions (e.g., steady-state operation), limitations, or behavior with incomplete inputs. The description adds the sideband formula but remains somewhat opaque about the underlying algorithm.

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 two short paragraphs with no redundant words. The primary action (detect eccentricity) is front-loaded, and the key technical detail (sideband formula) is included efficiently.

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 8 parameters (all with defaults) and an output schema (context confirms exists), the description covers the high-level process and key formula. It could mention typical output structure or severity levels, but the output schema likely provides that. Adequate for a specialized analytical 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 baseline is 3. The description adds the sideband formula context but does not significantly extend the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already describes. No extra clarity on parameter relationships or typical values.

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 air-gap eccentricity faults from current spectrum, specifies the analysis of sidebands at f_s ± k·f_r for static and dynamic eccentricity, and notes it returns severity classification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_bearing_faults or detect_broken_rotor_bars.

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 usage when a current spectrum is available and eccentricity detection is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not directive.

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