analyze_plot_spectrum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a UI window ('Open the Plot Spectrum window') and requires a selection, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, what happens if no region is selected, or whether spectrum data is returned vs. purely displayed.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first states the purpose immediately, and the second provides the critical prerequisite. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It explains the action and prerequisite, though it could benefit from clarifying whether the tool returns data or produces only a visual window.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds value by identifying the implicit input ('selected audio' / 'region'), which compensates for the empty parameter schema by clarifying what data the tool operates on.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') with a specific resource ('Plot Spectrum window') and scope ('for the selected audio'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from analysis siblings like analyze_beat_finder or analyze_contrast by specifying the exact analysis type (spectrum plotting).

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Select a region first'), indicating when the tool is ready to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative analysis tools or clarify when to choose spectrum analysis over other analysis methods.

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