sample_waveform

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: values are raw ADC counts not engineering units, there is no CT/VT phase correction so angles are approximate, and it requires the admin user on a password-protected device. The auth requirement and data caveats are exactly the behavioral disclosures annotations cannot carry.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with interpretation and caveats following. It runs to several sentences, and the load-interpretation examples are somewhat illustrative padding, but each sentence still contributes practical context for reading the output.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and it does list the returned shape metrics (crest factor, harmonics, distortion, phase lag) plus the optional raw sample pairs. It stops short of stating framing, ordering, or an example envelope, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'single CT input' notion and the pair count (~640) that maps loosely to include_samples, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Capture one AC cycle of raw voltage and current samples... from a single CT input' and enumerates the derived metrics. It sharply distinguishes this from siblings like snapshot by clarifying it is 'a snapshot of everything on that CT, not of one appliance.' An agent can identify what it does without opening the schema.

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 explains what the readings reveal (heater vs motor vs electronics) and tacitly implies when it is useful, but it never explicitly names when to use it versus siblings (snapshot, query, watch). Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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