reconstruct_spectrum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the return value ('Returns the spectrum + the flat-vs-reference and neutral-vs-colored-sun divergence (always surfaced)') and explains key behavioral differences between methods and sun spectral models. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but as a reconstruction tool it is likely read-only and the description sufficiently conveys its operational 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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured with semicolons separating the method, sun_spectral, dseries_sky, sun_spd, and return behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and then details options. There is no fluff, but it is lengthy; still, every sentence contributes essential information for correct invocation.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required), the description covers the most decision-relevant parameters and the return contract. An output schema exists, which likely details the exact return structure, so the description need not repeat that. It omits a few parameters, but the essential information for selecting the method and understanding the output is present. Slight gaps remain for edge-case parameters like channel_type and solar_zenith, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly in most scenarios.

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 the meaning of method, sun_spectral, dseries_sky (and its dependence on sky_cct), and sun_spd as an override. It does not explicitly cover sky_spd, channel_type, or solar_zenith, but these are either inferable from context or secondary. The description adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema, though not exhaustive.

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 starts with a specific action: 'Reconstruct a 401-value 380-780 nm @1 nm per-nm spectrum from sky+sun channel sets'. It clearly identifies the verb, the resource, and the source data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spd_to_channels (conversion) or spectral_metrics (analysis). It also references the spec section, adding precision.

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 explains the two methods ('faithful' reproduces legacy 2.0, 'reference' re-integrates to channel bin totals) and the sun_spectral options, giving clear context on what each does. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other or exclude alternatives among siblings. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough that usage is largely self-evident.

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