Dd Constellation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses side effects — files are written (CSV and PNG) and an image is returned — which is real value. It omits prerequisites (active Digital Demod measurement?), overwrite behavior, file destinations, and failure modes, so it is only partially transparent for a multi-side-effect 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates read-act, persistence, and return value in the order they matter. Zero padding.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow adequately but leaves gaps: measurement preconditions, where files land, and how add_to_report ties into the report_* tools. Adequate but not complete.

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 50%; the schema already explains eye, label, and max_eye_traces (including the ~0.1 s per-trace cost). The description corroborates eye traces and the returned plot but says nothing about note, add_to_report, or how it interacts with the report_* sibling tools, so it does not compensate for the uncovered half.

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 chain: read constellation points (plus ideal references and eye traces) from the Digital Demod screen, save CSV and PNG, and return the plot. That is unambiguous about what it produces. It never names or distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, dd_results, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer from the resource name alone that a Digital Demod measurement must be active and that this is preferred over a generic results reader for constellation data.

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