crompton_spectrogram

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (metadata+URL), image dimensions, and frequency scale (log-frequency). It does not mention destructive actions or permissions, but for a read-only spectrogram tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (metadata+URL) and the PNG dimensions. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'track' fully described (integer 1-13). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so score is baseline 3.

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 it returns metadata and a URL for a pre-rendered log-frequency spectrogram PNG. It specifies the image dimensions (1600x512) and what vision-capable agents can inspect (density, dropouts, repeated shapes, section-scale structure). This distinguishes it from siblings like crompton_waveform.

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 context on when to use the tool: for vision-capable agents to inspect spectrograms. It implies usage for analyzing audio features, but does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives.

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