Mne Plot Evoked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return of a PNG path, which is useful, but it does not disclose any side effects, session state changes, or error conditions. For a plotting tool, side effects are minimal, but it fails to mention that the plot is saved to a file and what happens if the file already exists.

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 concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and style options, followed by the return value. Every word is useful and there is no filler.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no required), the description is mostly adequate, but it misses explaining the 'name' parameter and does not clarify that the plot is saved to a file (though it mentions PNG path). The output schema likely indicates the return type, so it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. A bit more context on the 'name' parameter 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%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter at all. It only explains the 'style' parameter through enumeration of values. The 'name' parameter likely refers to the variable name in the session, but this is not stated. The description partially compensates by listing style options, but 'name' remains undefined.

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 clearly states it plots an Evoked response and lists three style options, distinguishing it from siblings like mne_plot_epochs_image and mne_plot_topomap. It is specific about the resource (Evoked) and the action (plot). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it works on averaged data, which mne_average_evoked suggests.

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 implies usage for plotting Evoked data, and the style options provide some guidance on variations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over mne_plot_topomap or mne_plot_epochs_image, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an Evoked object in session. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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