read_logic_channels

Does 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 disclose useful behavior: mode-dependent return shapes, pagination via offset/limit, edge direction via level_after, and the valid channel range 0-7. It never states the operation is read-only, nor how start_s/end_s scope the sample window, so the disclosure is only partial for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

Very compact, front-loaded statement of purpose followed by a per-mode breakdown. No filler sentences; every clause carries information. Slightly cryptic notation (level_after 判向) costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage across 7 parameters, the description supplies the essential mode semantics and pagination but omits the meaning of capture_id and the start_s/end_s window and gives no hint about the response shape of 'stats'. Adequate but noticeably incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 mode values, offset/limit pagination, channel bounds (0-7), and level_after's direction meaning, but leaves capture_id, start_s, and end_s entirely unexplained and gives no format examples for the time bounds.

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?

Names the specific resource (8 logic input channels) and its key trait (sampled synchronously with current), and breaks the tool into two output modes. The verb is only implicit via the tool name, and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like analyze_capture or detect_activity_segments, but an agent can tell this reads logic-channel data from a capture.

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?

Explains what each mode yields ('stats' = high-level ratio/edge count, 'edges' = paginated edge table), which implicitly tells the agent which mode to pick based on desired output. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool at all versus analyze_capture, detect_activity_segments, or list_captures.

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