values_at

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. It only states it is a batch operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. As a read-like operation, it is missing important safety context.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the key purpose and usage guidance, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Although the tool has a simple schema and an output schema exists, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, ordering of results, or error conditions. For a batch operation, more context would help an agent understand how results correspond to inputs.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Raw tick or exact unit time' for time, 'Signal full paths or unique leaf names' for signals). The description adds 'Batch' context but does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 it is a batch version of value_at for multiple signals. It distinguishes from sibling tool value_at, which would require repeated calls. The verb 'values_at' is specific and the resource ('multiple signals') is well-defined.

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 says 'Prefer this over repeated value_at calls,' giving clear guidance on when to use this tool over the alternative. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the preference is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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