mne_describe

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the session, handle errors, or require a loaded session object. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes concrete examples. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose and parameter semantics, though it lacks explicit notes on error conditions or prerequisites. Given the output schema, it does not need to explain return values.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides the only context for the 'name' parameter by calling it 'one named session object'. This clarifies that 'name' is an identifier for a session object, but it does not specify the expected format or how to obtain valid names.

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 ('Show') and resource ('one named session object'), and lists example contents (channels, sfreq, montage, bads). This clearly distinguishes it from session-level tools like mne_session_info and other siblings.

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: when you need a detailed summary of a specific session object identified by name. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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