get_chop_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation and optional filters, but does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens when channel/start/end are omitted, whether sample ranges are inclusive, or any potential side effects. Being a getter, it probably is safe, but that is not stated or annotated.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds optional qualifiers. Every word earns its place, no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (data format, structure) and the exact meaning of the 'sample range'. It also lacks any note about path syntax or default behavior. While it covers the basic purpose, it leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 mentions 'specific channel and sample range', hinting at channel, start, and end parameters, but does not define what start/end represent (e.g., indices, time units, inclusivity) or what the path parameter should point to. The parameter semantics are only superficially clarified and not sufficient for an agent to correctly construct arguments.

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 ('Get') and resource ('CHOP channel data'), and scopes it with optional channel and sample range filters. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_chop_channels (which lists channel names, not data) and export_chop_to_parm (which writes to parameters).

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 usage: if you need CHOP channel data, possibly filtered by channel or sample range, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like list_chop_channels or export_chop_to_parm, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The absence of explicit alternatives places it at 'implied usage'.

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