get_chop_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior via '读取' and 'bounded' but does not clarify what 'bounded' means practically (e.g., limits on data size or range). It also omits side effects, required permissions, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose and the key parameter constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It addresses only one aspect (parameter selection constraint) and ignores other important parameters like ctx, channels, and output_index, as well as return behavior. A more complete description is needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the core selection parameters (node_path, sample/frame/time/start/end 'choose one'), which is helpful. However, it leaves ctx, channels, and output_index completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the tool reads CHOP samples ('有界读取 CHOP 采样'), specifying the verb (read) and resource (CHOP samples). It also hints at bounded access, which distinguishes it from broader CHOP tools like export_chop_to_parm or list_chop_channels. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools.

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 a parameter selection rule ('node_path，sample/frame/time/start/end 选一') but provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_chop_to_parm or list_chop_channels. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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