alpha_opic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scale_warning behavior, the relative/normalized threshold (peak <= 1.5), and that the channel route is unaffected. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema, though it stops short of explaining error cases or exact output behavior.

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 well-organized and dense without being bloated. The inputs are front-loaded, the alpha mapping is compact, and the scale_warning note is placed at the end where it belongs. Slight cryptic reference to 'CORE-3' costs some clarity, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, so the description carries a heavy load. It covers the spd route well, including supported input forms and alpha options, but leaves the channels route and channel_type semantics under-specified. The mutual exclusivity of spd vs channels is implied but not explicitly enforced, which could confuse an agent.

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 does explain spd formats, alpha values, and the general channel route, which adds real meaning to the opaque schema. However, channel_type is not described at all, and the channel array contents are only vaguely called 'binned route'.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as computing CIE S 026 alpha-opic E/ELR/EDI values and distinguishes the two input routes (spd vs channels). It is not merely a restatement of the name, and the alpha mapping adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from nearby siblings like circadian_metrics or spectral_metrics.

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 gives important usage constraints: provide spd OR channels, alpha values are mapped 1-5, and omitting alpha returns all five. It implies when to use the exact-spectrum vs binned route, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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