pulse_response

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

The description discloses essential behaviors: expects a one-step transition in a transient .raw file, auto-detects initial/final values but allows explicit override if contaminated by ringing, defines metrics (overshoot/undershoot concepts), and notes that settling_time may be null if never settled. This adds substantial value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 well-structured and concise: it opens with the purpose, then covers inputs, returns, definitions, and special notes. Every sentence adds value, and it is not verbose. It effectively front-loads the key information.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description is comprehensive. It covers input requirements, output fields, definitions of metrics, edge cases (auto-detection contamination, AC rejection), and alternatives. With an output schema existing, the description does not need to detail return structure but does so adequately.

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 descriptions are already detailed, but the tool description adds meaning by explaining the auto-detection logic (first/last 10% of window), the definition of overshoot and undershoot, and the interpretation of overshoot_pct=0 as measured overdamped. It also clarifies the role of settling_tolerance_pct with common values.

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 provides step-response quality metrics (overshoot, undershoot, settling time, peak value and peak time). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool edge_metrics by noting that tool is for rise/fall time without overshoot.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (need step-response metrics) and when not (for rise/fall time without overshoot, use edge_metrics). It also mentions that it rejects AC analysis, providing clear usage boundaries.

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