analyze_plot_spectrum

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool opens a window, implying a UI action with no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose if there are any blocking behaviors, return values, or requirements beyond selection. Adequate for a parameterless tool but limited.

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?

The description is just two sentences, front-loading the action and then the prerequisite. Every word is necessary; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers the core action and a key prerequisite. It does not elaborate on return values (e.g., whether the window returns data), but this is acceptable given the tool's low complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the schema covers the (empty) parameters fully.

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 specifies the verb 'open' and the resource 'Plot Spectrum window for selected audio', which clearly distinguishes it from other analysis tools like analyze_beat_finder or analyze_label_sounds. It is specific and unique.

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 mentions 'Select a region first' as a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when frequency analysis is needed vs. beat finding). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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