spectral_decay_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the analytical basis (1/f^beta power law, anomalous decay slopes, CVPR 2025 research), which helps interpret results, but says nothing about cost, permissions, determinism, or limits of the analysis. A moderate score reflects domain context without operational disclosure.

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 with the core action, followed by brief domain motivation and a compact Args block. Every sentence is relevant, though the research citation is decorative rather than actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter plus its format are covered. For a one-parameter analysis tool with no annotations, the description supplies adequate context, though sibling routing remains absent.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does, stating that image_path is an 'Absolute path to the image file', which conveys the required path format beyond the bare schema title.

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 ('analyze the power spectral density decay curve of an image') plus the detection rationale, so the agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling frequency_analysis, which plausibly covers overlapping frequency-domain ground.

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?

Usage is only implied via the AI-generated-image detection framing ('AI-generated images often show different decay slopes'); there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the six siblings. The agent must infer that this is for diffusion-model forensics rather than, say, generic frequency inspection.

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