capture_aligned

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the hardware behavior (back-to-back reads) and mock behavior, providing good transparency about the tool's operation. Could mention potential limitations like channel availability.

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 moderately concise, with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and includes necessary details. Minor redundancy in first paragraph could be trimmed.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers key aspects like time alignment and output summary. Missing context like prerequisites might be acceptable.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by explaining why channels are time-aligned, what deep memory means, and why include_samples affects output size. This goes beyond just repeating schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it captures multiple channels on the same time base for time-aligned comparison. This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_memory, which likely captures single channels or in a non-aligned way.

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 description explains when to use (comparing two signals sample-for-sample) and provides context about shared time base. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like capture_memory.

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