parse_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important side effects: it writes a .npz next to the source, uses a predictable naming scheme, never overwrites a different format's npz, and runs fully offline. It also explains how sample-rate information is obtained per format, which is behavior an agent would otherwise only discover by calling it.

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 compact yet information-dense. Core purpose and offline nature are front-loaded, and the parameter rules are grouped logically in a way that is easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Covers input formats, parameter requirements, output location/naming, collision behavior, and return summary. The minor gap is that 'capture summary' is not specified in structure or content, and same-format overwrite behavior is left implicit.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: it defines when sample_rate_hz is needed versus embedded, and what n_samples is for. The required path parameter is implied by 'exported capture' and 'source.'

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?

States a specific action ('Parse'), the exact source formats (.kvdat/.bin/.csv/.txt), and the output (.npz). The offline qualifier and file-extension scope set it apart from device-dependent siblings like capture/export_data.

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?

It clearly says this tool is for already-exported capture files and needs no KingstVIS connection, which places it in a distinct workflow from capture/export_data/raw_command. It also gives per-format requirements (bin needs sample_rate_hz; csv/txt require it; n_samples is optional). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear.

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