calculate_room_modes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the analytical behavior well — modal orders, cutoff handling, Bonello 1/3-octave band criterion, and Bolt ratio compliance — but says nothing about the shape of the returned results (e.g. per-mode frequency lists vs. pass/fail flags).

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the core computation is front-loaded and the analytical criteria follow. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe returns; it does so only conceptually (resonance clustering and null zones) rather than structurally. For a stateless calculator with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents dimensions, temperature, and cutoff frequency. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (calculates) and resource (discrete acoustic standing wave room modes, Axial/Tangential/Oblique) with a stated scope (rectangular enclosures, up to a cutoff frequency). This is clearly distinct from siblings like calculate_schroeder_frequency or calculate_rt60_reverb_time.

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 its purpose (identify bass resonance clustering and null zones) but never states when to use it versus calculate_schroeder_frequency or calculate_rt60_reverb_time, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the domain, but no routing guidance is given.

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