characterize_signal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it is stubbed, returns a structured not-implemented result, and validates the channel. However, lacks details on side effects, permissions, or response format.

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?

Description is moderately concise but includes meta commentary about scaffolding and Part 1/3 that may not help an agent. Could be trimmed to the essential purpose and stub status.

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 tool is a stub, the description adequately communicates its temporary nature and high-level behavior. Completeness is good for a placeholder but lacks details on actual use.

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 has generic 'args' and 'kwargs' with 0% description coverage. Description mentions a 'channel' parameter not present in schema, providing no actual parameter guidance. Fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Characterize the signal on channel', which is a specific verb+resource. Differentiates from siblings as the only characterization tool. However, clarifies it's stubbed, which slightly muddles the immediate purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acq_run or measure. Only indicates it's a temporary stub for Part 1, implying it should not be used for real work but lacks explicit when-not-to-use context.

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