mne_compute_noise_cov

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the computation uses baseline data up to tmax seconds (default 0), which is useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose return behavior, whether input is modified, or any error conditions, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first states what it does, the second gives pipeline context. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params) and has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. The description gives the essential purpose, context, and tmax behavior. The only omission is explicit semantics for name and cov_name, but defaults and output schema partially cover this, making it adequately complete for a typical user.

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%, and the description only explains tmax ('data up to tmax seconds, default 0'). It does not explain what 'name' (the epochs object) or 'cov_name' (the output variable) mean, despite these being key parameters. The description adds some meaning for one of three params but not enough to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Compute') and identifies the resource ('noise covariance matrix from the Epochs baseline'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mne_make_forward or mne_apply_inverse. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

It states when this is needed ('before building an inverse operator for source localization'), situating it within the analysis pipeline. It doesn't mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it, but the contextual cue is strong.

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