get_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that reads are scoped to recent token groups, that it depends on an attached processor exposing token_history, and describes the return contents. It does not describe error behavior when no such processor is attached, limit semantics details, or ordering guarantees.

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?

Description is compact and well-organized, with a clear opening sentence, a purpose paragraph, and an integration note. Zero waste — every sentence adds value. Could arguably be slightly trimmed but is appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the use case, prerequisites (attached processor with token_history), built-in default, and extensibility for custom tokenizers. For a read tool with good schema coverage and output schema, this is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds context about the return structure but doesn't add meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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?

Description clearly states it reads discrete tokens from a tokenizing processor and explains the output (grouped tokens, flat sequence, vocab size, channel/band layout). It distinguishes from siblings like get_processor_output by specifying the token-specific nature and structured return. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against get_processor_output or read_window as alternatives.

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?

Description states the use case ('For feeding EEG into sequence models') and notes compatibility with any processor exposing token_history, but doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. The context is reasonably clear for when this tool applies.

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