ht_sine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'fetch', implying a read operation, but gives no information about rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is critically inadequate.

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 extremely concise—just 5 words. While this leads to severe under-specification, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place by hinting at the tool's function, though it fails to provide necessary details.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond a vague hint, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no differentiation from alternatives. This leaves the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (symbol, interval, month, series_type, datatype) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever—it doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or valid values. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Fetch hilbert transform - sine wave' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'ht_sine' (likely meaning Hilbert Transform sine). It doesn't specify what resource is being fetched (e.g., financial data, signal processing results) or provide a clear verb beyond 'fetch'. While it hints at a mathematical transformation, it lacks specificity about the domain or output.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools (e.g., ht_dcperiod, ht_phasor, ht_trendline) that appear related to Hilbert Transform functions, there's no indication of how this specific sine wave variant differs or when it's appropriate. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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