mne_tfr_morlet

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

With no annotations, the description discloses some behavioral traits: results are stored under tfr_name and a PNG path is returned. Yet it does not mention whether existing TFR objects are overwritten, session state changes, or any other side effects, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 purpose, and every clause provides useful information without redundancy.

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 complex time-frequency analysis tool, the description lacks important context: it does not mention that epochs must already exist, that the TFR result is added to the session, or details about the plot. While an output schema exists, the absence of these operational details makes the tool harder to use safely.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains fmin/fmax, n_freqs, and tfr_name, but completely omits epochs_name, leaving part of the parameter list undocumented.

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 computes Morlet-wavelet time-frequency power on Epochs and plots it. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mne_plot_psd or mne_make_epochs.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool operates on Epochs data, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it misses the top score.

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