mne_resample

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 contributes the important fact that resampling happens 'in place,' implying mutation rather than returning a new object. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or whether Raw and Epochs objects are handled identically, leaving gaps.

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 with no redundant words. Every phrase adds value: the object type, the target frequency, and the in-place behavior. It is a model of concise, scannable tool documentation.

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 no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a two-parameter tool, the one-sentence description leaves critical context unexplained: the meaning and usage of the 'name' parameter, any constraints on 'sfreq' (e.g., must be <= original rate), and what 'in place' means for return values. While an output schema may exist, it does not compensate for the ambiguity around selecting the target object.

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 clarifies that 'sfreq' is the new sampling frequency in Hz, but it never explains the 'name' parameter, which is likely the session identifier for the object to resample (defaulting to 'raw'). This incomplete parameter explanation makes correct invocation harder for an agent.

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 'Resample' and clearly identifies the resource ('a Raw/Epochs object') and the action's target ('a new sampling frequency (Hz)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mne_filter and mne_crop, and the addition of 'in place' further clarifies the operation's nature.

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 implies the tool is used when a different sampling rate is needed for a Raw or Epochs object, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough to infer usage, but it does not meet the bar for explicit usage framing.

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