Mne Tfr Morlet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'Stored under tfr_name' and 'Returns PNG path', which are useful, but it does not describe the nature of the TFR object, whether it modifies the Epochs object, or if it requires any prior steps. It lacks details on side effects or prerequisites, so the agent may be unaware of what happens to the data.

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 concise paragraph, with the main action and key parameters front-loaded. It is efficient, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) slightly reduces readability. Still, it is appropriately sized for the task.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (likely indicating a PNG path), the description is incomplete. It does not mention how the TFR is stored or returned, nor whether the computation is applied to all epochs or requires specific channels. The presence of an output schema might partially cover return values, but the description should clarify the relationship between tfr_name and epoch_name, which is missing. Overall, it's borderline inadequate for a complex MNE tool.

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 explain all parameters. It only explains 'fmin/fmax = frequency range (Hz), n_freqs = number of frequencies', but fails to explain tfr_name and epochs_name, which are crucial for specifying where to store and which epochs to use. The description partially compensates but is incomplete for the 5 parameters.

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 verb 'compute' and resource 'Morlet-wavelet time-frequency power on Epochs', and mentions plotting and output as PNG path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mne_compute_tfr by specifying the Morlet wavelet method and producing a plot. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so not a 5.

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 gives a brief context (compute and plot TFR on epochs), implying it is used for time-frequency analysis, and mentions capturing output as PNG path, which suggests when to use it. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as mne_compute_tfr, which might be more appropriate for returning data objects instead of plots. The guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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