Mne Plot Raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the return format ('Returns a PNG path'), but says nothing about session dependency (raw data must presumably be loaded via mne_load_raw first), whether the call alters session state, or where the PNG is written. That plotting is read-only is implied but never made explicit.

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?

Two terse sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; every word earns its place. The tradeoff is that the brevity is achieved by omitting exactly the semantic detail the 0% schema coverage and absent annotations require.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 40+ siblings, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks parameter semantics, session prerequisites, and sibling routing; only the return value is covered, and the output schema already handles that.

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, and it does so only vaguely. 'A window of channels over time' loosely maps to start/duration/n_channels, but the description never states units for start/duration (seconds? samples?), what 'name' refers to (an in-session raw object? a file?), or how n_channels selects which channels to show.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plot') with a specific resource ('raw signal traces'), and the parenthetical defines the plot's scope as a time-windowed channel view. The word 'raw' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like mne_plot_evoked and mne_plot_epochs_image, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 given for when to use this tool versus the many other plotting siblings (mne_plot_evoked, mne_plot_epochs_image, mne_plot_psd, mne_plot_topomap, mne_plot_sensors). With 40+ siblings, an agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the single word 'raw', which is thin routing guidance.

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