rs_get_io_signals

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It fails to mention that listing is a read-only operation, whether all signals are returned, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral 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 extremely concise at 4 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about what 'I/O signals' includes (e.g., all signals? filtered?), and there is no mention of return format. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters, but it also does not elaborate on the output or any implicit parameters. Baseline 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 'List I/O signals via SDK' clearly states the action (list), the resource (I/O signals), and the method (via SDK). It distinguishes from sibling 'rws_get_io_signals' which likely uses a different interface, so purpose is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'via SDK' implicitly suggests a protocol choice, but there is no explicit context about prerequisites, limitations, or when to prefer another tool like 'rws_get_io_signals'.

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