calculate_frequency_note

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

The description discloses the use of equal temperament tuning as the calculation method, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover potential side effects, output format, or validation behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise with one clear sentence and a helpful reference. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not visible here), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention what the output represents (frequency in Hz), which an agent might need.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate further.

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 clearly states the tool calculates the frequency of a musical note using equal temperament tuning. It is specific enough to distinguish from other calculate tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other frequency-related calculators.

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 only provides a reference to list_bundles for related calculators, without explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions is given.

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