get_signal_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by detailing what is returned (StoredSignalInfo with source_metadata populated), the source of that metadata (_metadata.json), the empty-dict fallback, and the ValueError condition. It also notes that ctx is unused. This is transparent and useful, though it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only (which is obvious from 'get').

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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence earns its place, providing key details without fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly assess relevance.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, return value, and error behavior. The output schema already covers the return structure, so the description does not need to over-explain. No gaps are evident.

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 provides no description for signal_id (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining it as 'ID of a signal previously loaded via load_signal.' This adds critical context beyond the raw schema. The mention of ctx is confusing because it does not appear in the schema, but it is clearly marked as unused, so it does not harm overall clarity.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get metadata for a stored signal without loading the full array.' This distinguishes it from load_signal (which loads the full array) and list_signals (which lists signals), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without loading the full array' clearly signals when to use this tool instead of loading the entire signal. It also states a prerequisite: signal_id must be from a signal 'previously loaded via load_signal.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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