add_spectrum_function

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

The annotations provide only weak signals (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral detail about duplicate handling, validation, required conditions for kind, side effects, or error behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a model-mutating add operation.

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 compact: a one-line purpose followed by a four-item parameter list. The bilingual annotations are terse and add no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The essential parameters are covered, but the description omits workflow context such as how this relates to add_spectrum_case, accepted kind values, and return/error behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context about expected outcomes would improve completeness.

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%, but the docstring compensates by explaining each parameter: name, factor, kind, and function_info, including the concrete structure [[period, value], ...] for function_info. It does not enumerate kind values, but it provides enough semantic meaning for initial tool selection.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add response spectrum function', with a Chinese translation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_creep_function, add_shrink_function, and add_time_history_function.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this when you need to define a response spectrum function. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like add_time_history_function or add_spectrum_case, nor any stated exclusions.

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