compute_envelope_spectrum_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic function without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., signal must be stored), or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for a computation tool.

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 moderately concise, but it includes a docstring-style 'Args:' block that largely repeats schema information. It could be more compact without losing clarity.

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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is too brief for a tool with multiple parameters. It does not explain constraints, default values, or the selection of envelope methods. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter context.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides units for filter_low and filter_high ('Hz') and a default for method, but it does not explain valid methods, the significance of the bandpass range, or the required format of signal_id. This adds minimal value beyond the schema titles.

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 envelope spectrum for a stored signal and explicitly ties it to bearing fault detection. This distinguishes it from many sibling tools that perform other types of analysis (e.g., FFT, power spectral density, statistics).

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 says 'Use for bearing fault detection,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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