detect_stator_faults

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 explains the underlying theory (sidebands due to stator asymmetry) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies stored data, required permissions, or computational cost. A score of 3 is appropriate given the lack of annotations and minimal side-effect disclosure.

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: two sentences covering purpose and theory. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. A slight deduction for lacking structure (e.g., bullet points or clear sections) but still 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 8 parameters, no annotations, and existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is moderately complete. It explains the fault detection principle but omits details about the output format, error conditions, or prerequisite steps (e.g., spectra must already be computed).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'current spectrum' but does not elaborate on parameter usage or formats. No enhancement.

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 stator inter-turn short circuit faults from current spectrum, specifying the sideband frequencies (f_s ± 2k·f_r). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_bearing_faults or detect_eccentricity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., detect_bearing_faults, diagnose_from_file). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where it is appropriate or inappropriate.

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