Identify time windows where positioning error exceeds a threshold, revealing peak true and estimated positions plus nearest beacons to spot moved beacons and divergence.
Time windows where the error stayed above a threshold, with the true and estimated position at the peak and the beacons nearest to each. Useful for spotting moved beacons and divergence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| threshold_m | No | ||
| min_duration_s | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the return structure (windows, peak true/estimated position, nearest beacons), which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it says nothing about it being a read-only diagnostic, the cost of the computation, or how the defaults behave, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the core output shape is front-loaded before the use case. Every clause adds information.
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?
Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The return shape is covered, but the required run_id is unexplained, the two tuning parameters lack units/defaults, and the tool's position relative to the other nine diagnostic siblings is unstated.
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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. "Above a threshold" and "time windows" loosely map to threshold_m and min_duration_s, but no units, defaults (3 m, 1 s), or filtering semantics are given. run_id, the sole required parameter, is never mentioned at all.
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 specifies the resource precisely: time windows where error exceeded a threshold, with true/estimated positions at the peak and nearest beacons. An agent can distinguish this from plot_run or compare_filters because the output shape (threshold-crossing windows, peak positions) is stated. It falls short of 5 because it never explicitly says this analyzes a single run's error trace, nor names which sibling it competes with.
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?
"Useful for spotting moved beacons and divergence" gives a purpose but no when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this or for plot_run / compare_filters / run_regression when diagnosing error. Usage is implied by context only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.