mne_plot_ica_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (plot) and the output (PNG path), but does not detail any required state (e.g., ICA must be fitted), whether it saves files, or how multiple components are rendered. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose, accepted input type, and output. No extraneous words or repetition, making it fully front-loaded and efficient.

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 and the output schema covers the return value, but the description is missing parameter explanations and usage context. It is adequate for a straightforward plotting tool but leaves some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with MNE conventions.

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 explain the parameters. It only partially addresses inst_name by mentioning 'raw/epochs', but ica_name is not described at all. The defaults and names give some hint, but the description adds minimal value.

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 ICA component time courses for raw or epochs, and explicitly notes it returns a PNG path. This verb+resource+output combination distinguishes it from the sibling mne_plot_ica_components, which likely plots topographies.

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 usage is implied by the purpose: one would use this tool to visualize ICA component time courses. However, there is no explicit mention of when to choose this over the sibling mne_plot_ica_components, nor any prerequisites like needing a fitted ICA.

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