input_M

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a convenience wrapper equivalent to get_data(msb='M'), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or return format, leaving the agent with limited insight beyond the core operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action first, then adds the crucial equivalence detail, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the imag parameter, the return payload structure, or any conditions required to use the tool correctly. The equivalence to get_data(msb='M') helps, but an agent would still need to consult other documentation to use it fully.

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 by explaining parameters, but it does not. It never mentions input_path or imag, and 'from an Input' only weakly hints at input_path's role. The imag boolean parameter remains completely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer its meaning from the description.

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 specific verb and object ('Get measured data from an Input'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It further distinguishes itself by noting it is a convenience method equivalent to get_data(msb='M'), which separates it from sibling tools like input_S and input_B.

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 equivalence statement gives clear context: use this instead of calling get_data with msb='M'. The phrase 'Get measured data' implies the intended scenario, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or comparison with input_S/input_B.

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