frequency_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the analysis looks for (grid patterns, spectral peaks, energy distribution), but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether it modifies or caches anything, or how heavy the computation is on large images.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight explanation of the detected artifacts and a compact Args block. No filler, though the Args restatement overlaps with the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers purpose, target artifacts, and the single parameter's expected form. It would be stronger with a hint about when to choose this tool versus the sibling analyses.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only carries a bare 'Image Path' title, so the description's 'Absolute path to the image file' adds genuinely useful semantics (absolute requirement, points at a file, not a directory or URL). One trivial parameter means little more is needed.

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+resource ('Perform FFT frequency analysis on an image') and goes further by naming what it detects (grid patterns, spectral peaks, unusual energy distribution). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like spectral_decay_analysis or noise_map by the FFT/spectral-artifact focus.

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 implies usage by noting the technique targets artifacts common in AI-generated images, so an agent can infer the forensic context. However it never states when to prefer this over spectral_decay_analysis or the full_forensic_report, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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