check_signal_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the tool's role as a safety/precheck gate and the failure modes it detects (flat/railed electrode poisoning references and thresholds). However, it doesn't describe the return format (output schema exists but the description doesn't explain what the output contains), return semantics, or any side effects. The behavioral insight about flat/railed poisoning is valuable, but for an analysis tool without annotations, more disclosure would help.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose concisely. The second sentence delivers high-value usage guidance in two sentences — a concrete call-to-action ('call before trusting') and a vivid consequence example. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or restatement.

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?

The tool has an output schema (present but not shown), all parameters are covered by the schema, and the description adds the critical 'when to call' context and failure-mode reasoning. For an analysis/precheck tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this description is complete — it tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and why it matters.

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 100% description coverage across all three parameters, so the schema already documents seconds (window length), line_freq (mains frequency), and session_id. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on overall behavior rather than specific parameters. With 100% coverage, the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a clear purpose: 'Per-channel health check' covering amplitude, flat/railed detection, and line noise. It distinguishes itself from siblings that manipulate streams, filters, or recordings. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling tools compete with it (e.g., get_band_power, get_psd) for signal-quality assessment, so differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Call this before trusting any real-time feature, and definitely before driving stimulation from one.' It also explains the consequence of skipping it (a flat/railed electrode poisons average reference and band-power threshold without being visible in the feature value itself), which strongly implies when NOT to skip this tool. This is clear, actionable context.

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