compute_power_spectral_density

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Welch method and the load_signal prerequisite, but does not describe potential errors, side effects (likely none), or output specifics. Given that an output schema exists, this is adequate but not rich.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, a prerequisite, and a clearly formatted Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 has an output schema, return values are covered. The description includes the essential prerequisite and parameter semantics, enough for a moderate-complexity tool with 4 parameters. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid signal_id, constraints on nperseg Vs noverlap), so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (samples per FFT segment, overlap, window function) and listing defaults. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Compute Power Spectral Density (Welch method) for a stored signal' with a specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like compute_spectrogram_stft and analyze_fft, making the tool's purpose 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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires signal loaded via load_signal() first'), establishing context for when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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