compute_thdCompute total harmonic distortion from an LTspice raw waveform by specifying the signal and fundamental frequency, returning THD results for simulation analysis.
Total harmonic distortion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | Yes | ||
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| fundamental_hz | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context at all - no mention of required inputs being an existing raw file, of failure modes for a bad fundamental, or of what gets returned. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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?
Four words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing about the operation is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load.
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 4-parameter computation tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description should at minimum explain the input contract and the resulting metric. As written, an agent must open the schema and still cannot infer units, expected signal form, or output shape.
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 only 25% (only 'workspace_root' is documented) and the description supplies nothing beyond the bare term. The semantics of 'signal', 'raw_path' (file vs. identifier), and 'fundamental_hz' (units, expected range) are left entirely unexplained.
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 merely expands the acronym in the title ("Compute Thd" -> "Total harmonic distortion."), which is close to a tautology. It does not say what the tool computes over, from what input ('signal', 'raw_path'), or how it differs from neighbours like read_fourier or export_fft_spectrum that also deal with spectral content.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this belongs in a measurement workflow versus read_fourier or measure_waveform, so it must guess from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.