harmonic_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses substantial behavior: the exact analytic formulas, fidelity='exact', the ζ ≥ 1/√2 no-peak edge case being flagged, and the internal warnings/valid_range_ok fields. It does not state whether it performs any I/O or has side effects, but as an analytic screen that is implied.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded: the core purpose ('Exact SDOF harmonic frequency response (NO solver)') leads, followed by formulas and edge cases. It is barely oversized for the amount of genuinely useful information packed in, though the formula block makes it read more like a spec than prose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description compensates fully: it documents inputs, the analytic model, edge-case behavior, and enumerates the exact return fields including warnings and escalate_to. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines r = f/f_n, explains `frequency_hz` as the drive frequency at which the response is returned, `static_deflection_mm` as absolute scaling to amplitude_mm, and `damping_ratio` via ζ. Only the `natural_frequency_hz` parameter is not explicitly explained, but its meaning is obvious from context.

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 precisely what the tool computes: an exact closed-form SDOF harmonic frequency response (FRF) with no solver, and explicitly distinguishes it from the meshed `harmonic_response_submit` sibling it gates. It also positions it relative to `beam_modal` and `random_vibration`. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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?

It states when to use this analytic FRF screen ('NO solver') and when to escalate to `harmonic_response_submit` ('for a real meshed FRF (multi-mode, geometry-true)'). It also names the upstream siblings that supply its inputs (`beam_modal` for f_n, `random_vibration` for Q=1/(2ζ)), giving explicit routing.

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