convolution

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 the available output modes, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the return shape (array length per mode) or expected input characteristics. For a side-effect-free numerical function the risk is low, so a middling score is appropriate.

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 short sentences, no waste, with the core operation stated first and the mode support second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 pure-computation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could add a note on what each mode returns (e.g., output length), but nothing critical for invoking the tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents signal, kernel, and the mode enum. The description's mention of the three modes duplicates what the schema provides and adds no format or semantic detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compute) and resource (discrete convolution of signal with kernel), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like correlation_calc, polynomial_ops, or fft_transform, so it falls just short of 5.

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 lists supported modes (full, same, valid) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Listing modes is not the same as usage guidance.

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