mne_plot_raw

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 does state that the tool 'Returns a PNG path', which is a useful behavioral detail about the output format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file creation location), performance implications, or how the raw object might be affected, though as a plotting tool it is likely non-mutating.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and the return value. There is no verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 there are four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description should provide more context about how to customize the plot. It only says 'a window of channels over time' and mentions the PNG path, but leaves the parameter semantics completely unexplained. The output schema may exist, but the description's lack of parameter detail makes the tool difficult to invoke 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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (name, start, duration, n_channels). The phrase 'window of channels over time' vaguely hints at start/duration/n_channels, but it does not explain their meanings, defaults, or how they interact. 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 opens with 'Plot raw signal traces', providing a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the tool's scope with '(a window of channels over time)' and distinguishes it from sibling plotting tools like mne_plot_psd or mne_plot_sensors.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other plotting tools in the sibling list. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond the basic action of plotting raw traces.

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