mne_plot_sensors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: the tool returns a PNG path. It also hints at the kind parameter options. However, it does not mention side effects, temporary file creation, or whether it requires a specific backend. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two succinct sentences with front-loaded purpose. It avoids redundancy, clearly states the return value, and earns every word. Highly concise 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description remains incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations. It omits semantics for 'name' and 'show_names', does not give exact valid values for 'kind', and fails to contextualize usage among many sibling tools. These gaps could prevent correct invocation.

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. It only partially explains 'kind' via the parenthetical, but leaves 'name' and 'show_names' completely undefined. The agent cannot infer what 'name' refers to (likely a data variable in the session) or what 'show_names' controls, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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's function with the specific verb 'Plot' and resource 'sensor/electrode layout', distinguishing it from sibling tools like mne_plot_raw or mne_plot_topomap. The parenthetical mentioning kind='topomap' 2D or '3d' adds scope. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 alternatives such as mne_plot_topomap or mne_plot_raw. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., loaded data with sensor positions) or contrast with other plotting tools, leaving usage entirely inferred from the verb and resource.

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