cycle_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it reveals the algorithmic pipeline (multiple spectral methods plus three-level voting) and the kind of outputs produced. It does not mention edge cases or limitations, but the operation is clearly non-mutating analysis of supplied data, so the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose ('频谱周期检测') and then packs the method, voting mechanism, and outputs with no filler. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 that an output schema exists, return values do not need to be elaborated further. Together with the schema, the description covers input format, selectable methods, target period range, and outputs. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but that is a usage-guidance issue rather than a completeness gap for invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to the input time series and naming the default methods, which matches but does not exceed the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific action—running FFT/ACF/wavelet/MUSIC spectral analysis plus three-level voting on an input time series—and names concrete outputs (detected period, confidence, current phase). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools by method and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against similar cycle-related siblings.

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 phrase '对输入时间序列' makes it clear the tool is for analyzing user-provided time series data, which implies its usage context. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternative siblings such as cycle_collect, cycle_nesting, or cycle_phase, nor any exclusions.

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