rew_crossover_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a two-step workflow—analyze, then verify against a measured trace—but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific preconditions. Some useful behavior is communicated, but a meaningful gap remains.

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 focused sentences, no wasted words. The primary analytical action is front-loaded, and the verification step adds meaningful scope without bloat.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., loaded traces), what the tool returns, and how the parameters map to the analysis. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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%, and the description does not explain what mainId, subId, crossoverHz, or spanOctaves mean. It mentions 'crossover' generically, which hints at the role of crossoverHz, but the critical relationship between mainId/subId and the phase/summation analysis is left entirely to inference.

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 uses specific verbs ('Analyze', 'Verify') and names a distinct resource: phase agreement and predicted summation around a crossover, with verification against a measured combined trace. This clearly differentiates it from sibling analysis tools, none of which mention crossover behavior.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when crossover phase agreement and summation need to be analyzed and verified. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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