log_signal_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safe read-only profile. The description adds the behavioral detail of a 'one full, one-pass scan,' which implies a resource-intensive operation, and clarifies that it observes signals rather than modifying anything.

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 a single sentence that leads with the verb and concisely states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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 four parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the meaning of match_mode or include_values, nor the nature of the inventory output. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly with confidence.

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 for parameter semantics. The description only hints at dbc_path and log_path via 'DBC signals' and 'CAN log,' but leaves match_mode and include_values entirely unexplained. No details on acceptable formats, defaults, or effect on output are provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inventory' and names the resource 'DBC signals observed in one full, one-pass scan of a local CAN log,' making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like search_signals and signal_timeseries by emphasizing the one-pass full scan, though it does not explicitly reference an alternative.

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 alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description implies usage when a complete inventory of signals in a log is needed, but it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like signal_timeseries or search_signals.

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