Mne Plot Epochs Image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns PNG path(s), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that plotting is non-mutating, whether a display backend is required, or other potential side effects. Basic behavior is covered, but deeper behavioral traits are absent.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action and output are stated immediately, and every word adds meaning.

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 relatively simple with only two optional parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the description is only minimally complete; an agent still cannot confidently determine how to set 'picks' or whether 'name' refers to a workspace variable.

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 does not explain what 'name' or 'picks' mean or how they should be formatted. The reference to an 'Epochs object' hints that 'name' might identify the object, but this is indirect and does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 ('Plot') and resource ('ERP image') with a clarifying parenthetical ('epochs × time heatmap'), and it names the output format ('Returns PNG path(s)'). This distinguishes it from sibling plotting tools such as mne_plot_evoked, mne_plot_raw, and mne_plot_topomap.

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 phrase 'for an Epochs object' implies a prerequisite and suggests when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit contrast with alternatives or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage rather than being told when to prefer this over mne_plot_evoked or mne_plot_psd.

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