mne_average_evoked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates data, is condition-selectable, and stores the result under evoked_name. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing evoked object, prerequisites (e.g., loaded epochs), or failure modes.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then provide the most important parameter behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 description is reasonably complete for a straightforward averaging operation, especially given an output schema exists. It covers the core action, condition handling, and storage location. Missing details like overwrite behavior are not critical for basic use but would improve completeness.

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 convincingly explains the 'condition' parameter and indicates the role of 'evoked_name' via 'Stored under evoked_name.' However, 'epochs_name' is not explicitly described, leaving its purpose to be inferred from its name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Average') and resource ('Epochs' into an 'Evoked (ERP/ERF) response'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like mne_make_epochs or mne_plot_evoked. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: averaging epochs into an evoked response. It also explains the condition parameter with an explicit 'else averages all' fallback. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives.

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