Analyze a saved capture offline to compute current statistics and envelope for a full or selected time window, returning mean, min, max, median, charge, and energy without device connection.
离线分析历史采集:全窗或 [start_s,end_s] 子窗的统计+包络(无需连接设备)。
返回 mean/min/max/median/charge(µC)/energy(µJ)与包络。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_s | No | ||
| start_s | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| envelope_points | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is offline, requires no device connection, and lists return metrics, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits error behavior (invalid capture_id), whether the op is purely read-only, and any resource constraints.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and return values secondary. Little waste, though the parenthetical unit annotations add minor clutter.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates returned values (mean/min/max/median/charge/energy and envelope). Combined with partial parameter coverage, it is nearly complete for this tool, with the envelope_points gap the main omission.
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. It clarifies start_s/end_s semantics (sub-window selection), but says nothing about envelope_points or units, leaving one of four parameters undocumented everywhere.
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 verb+resource (offline analysis of historical captures) and clarifies scope (full window or [start_s,end_s] sub-window). The '无需连接设备' clause distinguishes it from the acquisition siblings (capture/start_capture/stop_capture), though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied — analyze stored captures offline — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., detect_activity_segments also analyzes data) and no when-not guidance or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.