stft

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: the full magnitude matrix is saved as .npz when it exceeds 100x100 cells, and save_spectrogram adds a PNG render. But it omits permission needs, return format (spectrogram in response?), and what happens under the threshold.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the side-effect detail. Efficient.

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?

A 7-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% param coverage needs more. The description covers the primary return and a saving side-effect, but leaves most parameters and the response shape unexplained.

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% – all 7 parameters are undocumented. The description only implicitly references save_spectrogram; it says nothing about signal, sample_rate, window, nperseg, noverlap, or filename semantics. Fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Compute a short-time Fourier transform and return the magnitude spectrogram.' Clear and distinguishable from siblings like fft_analysis and wavelet_transform.

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 guidance on when to use this vs fft_analysis or wavelet_transform, no prerequisites, no mention of the relationship to power_spectrum. The agent must infer usage from the name.

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