spread_dft_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the analysis for hidden signals and anomalies but does not describe whether the tool modifies the file, its computational cost, required permissions, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and method. It is front-loaded with the main action and requires no extraneous words.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core operation but lacks details on output format, side effects, or specific requirements beyond file path. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to rely on without additional structured data.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (file_path and channel) are described in the schema. The description adds context about DFT and steganography detection but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: DFT magnitude spectrum analysis for spread spectrum steganography detection. It specifies that it computes the Discrete Fourier Transform of pixel values and analyzes the frequency spectrum for hidden signals, unusual peaks, or spectral flatness anomalies. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like spread_correlation or spread_noise_analysis.

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 implies the tool is used for detecting spread spectrum steganography in images, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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