load_signal_from_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: how sampling frequency is determined per format (inferred, auto-detected, required), supported file types, and the exact return values (signal, frequency, samples, duration, metadata). No contradictions.

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 concise: one sentence for the main purpose, then bullet points for format-specific details, and a closing sentence on return values and downstream use. No fluff, all sentences add value.

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 8 parameters (1 required), output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers all needed information: file formats, parameter usage per format, return values, and integration with other tools. Complete for a loading 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds format-specific context (e.g., CSV time column, WAV channel, NPY frequency requirement) that groups parameters logically, providing extra clarity beyond the schema alone.

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 loads a motor-current signal from CSV, WAV, or NPY files. It distinguishes itself by mentioning downstream tools (preprocess_signal, compute_spectrum, run_full_diagnosis), showing its role in a pipeline. This differentiates it from siblings like inspect_signal_file.

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 explains when each format is appropriate and when sampling frequency is required (e.g., for NPY it must be provided). It implicitly guides usage via format-specific details but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for metadata-only tasks use inspect_signal_file). Still, context is clear for most scenarios.

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