rec_pulses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds genuine value by explaining the type-dependent output shape (pulse metrics vs. state timeline with dwell times), but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or how max_list affects results.

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 analysis scope is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the type-branched behavior is packed into one sentence with no filler. It is dense and readable, though the single long sentence could be split to make the two output modes easier to scan.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers what is returned by symbol type. It is incomplete on inputs and preconditions — the meaning of 'id', the effect of 'max_list', and whether a recording must be active or finished are all left unstated.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it: it never explains what 'id' identifies, what 'symbol' must match, or what 'max_list' (default 200) truncates or controls. Only a loose hint that a single symbol is analysed is recoverable.

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 ('Pulse / dwell analysis of one recorded symbol') and even branches the semantics by data type (BOOL → pulse metrics, others → state timeline with dwell times), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, contrast itself against nearby siblings such as rec_read, rec_stats or rec_latency, so differentiation relies on the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'of one recorded symbol' hints that a recording must exist and that a symbol must be supplied, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the recording prerequisite and cannot tell from the text whether this supersedes or complements rec_read/rec_stats.

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