mne_plot_ica_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns PNG path(s)', which reveals the output type, but it does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., requiring a fitted ICA object), or whether the operation is read-only. For a plotting tool, this is minimal but not complete disclosure.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short clauses that state the action and output. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Plot', contains no redundant or filler text, and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter and an output schema—the description provides adequate context for what it does and returns. However, the complete omission of the parameter from the description leaves a clear gap, especially with zero schema coverage. The description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 mention the single parameter ica_name at all. While the parameter name is mildly self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about what the ICA name refers to or how it should be specified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ICA component scalp topographies, with the stated purpose of identifying eye/heart/muscle artifacts. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from the sibling tool mne_plot_ica_sources by specifying 'scalp topographies', which implies the alternative plots time-series sources.

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: after ICA fitting, to identify artifacts via topographic maps. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when this tool should not be used, such as when time-series inspection is needed (for which mne_plot_ica_sources would be appropriate).

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