mne_plot_topomap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output behavior ('Returns PNG path') and the accepted values for 'times', adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an existing Evoked object in the session), or any limitations. This partial disclosure is adequate but not rich, meriting a 3.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds essential information: the function and the parameter format. It is appropriately 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the main parameter, notes the return type, and implies the required input type. The only missing piece is elaboration on the 'name' parameter and prerequisites, but for a straightforward plotting tool this is not a major gap.

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 explains the 'times' parameter in detail (auto, peaks, or comma-separated seconds), but it does not explain the 'name' parameter, which presumably references the Evoked object. Since it fully covers one of two parameters and partially compensates, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Plot scalp topographies of an Evoked at given times.' The verb 'Plot' plus the specific resource 'scalp topographies of an Evoked' distinguishes it from sibling tools like mne_plot_evoked (time series) or mne_plot_sensors (sensor layouts). It also specifies the key parameter 'times' and its accepted formats, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when visualizing topographical scalp maps from Evoked data. It details the 'times' parameter options, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list and the uniqueness of topomap plotting imply exclusion. Since it offers clear context but no exclusions, it earns a 4.

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