Find the current phase of a cycle in a time series by running CF bandpass filtering and phase inference on period/value CSV data. Set the bandpass range in years.
周期相位判断：对输入时间序列运行 CF 带通滤波 + 相位推断
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| low_yr | No | 带通滤波低端（年） | |
| high_yr | No | 带通滤波高端（年） | |
| data_csv | Yes | CSV，包含 period,value 两列 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core processing behavior: CF bandpass filtering followed by phase inference. However, it does not mention side effects, assumptions about the input, or the interpretation of the phase output, leaving some behavioral context implicit.
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 front-loaded sentence with a clear purpose prefix and a concise method clause. It contains no filler, but it is terse enough that some usage and output guidance is omitted.
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 the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate for making a basic call. However, with many cycle-related sibling tools and no usage or behavioral guidance, the description is not fully complete for confident tool selection.
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?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of low_yr, high_yr, and the CSV format. The description adds only high-level algorithm context rather than parameter-level details, so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.
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 operation ('周期相位判断') on a defined resource ('输入时间序列') and explains the method (CF band-pass filter + phase inference). It is distinguishable from sibling cycle tools by focusing on phase determination rather than collection or nesting, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as cycle_detect, cycle_nesting, cycle_collect, or the various named cycle tools. The description only says what the tool does, not under what conditions it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.