compute_spectrogram_stft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the return is a time-frequency summary, not a full 2D array. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., signal must exist), or potential errors, which are relevant for an unannotated 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 appropriately concise: a short purpose statement, a usage note, and a bulleted parameter list. No redundant sentences; every element contributes to understanding.

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 output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It could add constraints or error conditions, but for a compute tool with this schema richness, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all four parameters: signal_id, nperseg, noverlap, and window, including defaults. It does not cover constraints like nperseg > noverlap or valid window types, but it provides enough meaning for basic usage.

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 computes an STFT spectrogram for a stored signal, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing time-frequency analysis and noting the output is a summary, not a full 2D array.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Use for detecting time-varying frequency content (transient faults, speed changes).' Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling names make alternatives clear.

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