analyze_spectrum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only analysis, if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. The term 'analysis' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single phrase ('FFT spectrum analysis'), which is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 implied by 'analysis' and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., frequency data, visual output) or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 'FFT spectrum analysis' restates the tool name 'analyze_spectrum' in technical jargon (FFT = Fast Fourier Transform), making it tautological rather than explanatory. It doesn't specify what resource is being analyzed (e.g., audio signal, data stream) or what the analysis produces, though it distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_rhythm' by focusing on spectrum rather than rhythm.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'analyze', 'analyze_rhythm', 'ai_analyze_pattern'), the description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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