mne_plot_psd

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

The description discloses the return value (PNG path) and accepted input types (Raw/Epochs/Evoked), which is valuable. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, whether the PNG file is persisted, or any potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return type. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It leaves ambiguous what 'name' refers to and how 'picks' should be specified, though the output schema partially compensates for understanding the return value.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (fmax, fmin, name, picks). The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names and defaults, which is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 the power spectral density of Raw/Epochs/Evoked objects and returns a PNG path. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling plotting tools like mne_plot_raw or mne_plot_evoked.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternative plot tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another plotting tool would be more appropriate.

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