Read binary waveform events directly

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds that it operates on verified runs, emits X/Z values, uses ns time units, and explicitly surfaces paging and unsupported metadata. The one notable omission is how unsupported signals are reported (error vs. omission).

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the core action and then list return content and the GUI exclusion. Every clause carries information; the phrase "paging and unsupported metadata explicitly" is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description usefully outlines what is returned (input/output roles, writable input names, paging metadata, unsupported entries), partially compensating for the missing output schema. It stops short of describing the response structure or how pages are exhausted, which would fully close the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description corroborates units (ns), paging behavior, and that signal selection targets scalar/display-bus names, but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb ("Decode") and resource ("verified SCF scalar and display-bus logic runs/events, including 0/1/X/Z") with units. It implicitly separates itself from write tools (scf_edit, scf_stimulus_edit) and GUI tools ("Does not open the GUI"), but never names the closest read siblings such as scf_structure or waveform_signals to disambiguate.

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?

Usage is implied by the decode framing and the explicit note that it does not open the GUI, so an agent can infer it is a headless read path. There is no stated when-to-use vs. waveform_signals/waveform_results/scf_structure, and no prerequisites such as needing a verified/compiled project.

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