Mne Plot Ica Sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it plots and returns a PNG path, but says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether it modifies session state), dependencies on prior steps (e.g., ICA must already be fitted, instrument must be loaded), or potential failure modes. This is a significant gap for a tool that operates on session objects.

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 sentence with no fluff, and it front-loads the primary action and return type. However, it is almost too terse, omitting crucial context that could be added without bloating it. Still, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 plots ICA component time courses, which implies a multi-step context (fitting ICA, having a raw/epochs object). The description fails to mention prerequisites, how components are selected (no parameter for that), or whether it plots all components or a subset. While an output schema exists (PNG path), the description does not cover operational requirements, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It gives a vague hint that the instrument can be raw or epochs, which maps to inst_name, but does not explain ica_name or clarify acceptable values or formats. The default values are not explained, and the description does not specify how parameters affect the output.

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 time courses for an instrument (raw/epochs) and returns a PNG path. This distinguishes it from siblings like mne_plot_ica_components (which would plot component topomaps) and mne_plot_raw (raw signal plots). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 after ICA fitting and when time courses are desired, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'for an instrument (raw/epochs)' hint is the only contextual guidance.

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