mne_plot_evoked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value (PNG path), which is useful, and indicates the default style. However, it does not address side effects such as file creation, data immutability, or whether plots are displayed interactively.

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 short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and key parameter. No filler or redundant information.

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 plotting tool, the description is mostly complete: it specifies return type and style options. The missing explanation of the 'name' parameter and lack of usage context slightly reduce completeness, but the tool is straightforward.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for parameters, and the description compensates for 'style' by explaining valid values and default. However, the 'name' parameter is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its purpose.

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 the tool plots an Evoked response, with a specific verb ('Plot') and resource ('Evoked response'). It also lists three style options, distinguishing it from sibling plotting tools like mne_plot_raw or 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 description implies usage for plotting Evoked data and provides style selection guidance, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools like mne_plot_topomap or mne_plot_epochs_image. No exclusions or use cases are given.

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