Sa Peak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare operation. It never says the call is read-only, that show_marker=true causes a visible side effect on the instrument display, or what the returned peak representation contains. Only the parameter's own schema text hints at the marker side effect.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or restated boilerplate. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a side-effecting flag, but it wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema covers most parameters. However, with zero annotations and a boolean that mutates on-screen state, the description leaves the agent without a safety/behavior profile for a four-parameter instrument call.

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 75%, so the start/stop/show_marker semantics are largely handled by the schema itself (baseline 3). The description only adds the 'optionally within a range' framing for start/stop and says nothing about the undocumented 'trace' parameter or value formats for start/stop (number vs string).

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: finding the highest point of the trace, with the optional range qualifier. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like sa_peak_table or sa_marker by the 'single highest point' semantics, though the description never names or contrasts those alternatives 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?

The only usage hint is the parenthetical '(optionally within a range)', which implies start/stop semantics but does not state when to use this over sa_peak_table, sa_marker, or sa_measure. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context conditions are given.

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