add_signals_to_wave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It only states 'Add signals' without explaining what happens if signals already exist, whether the waveform viewer is cleared, or if there are side effects. The behavioral detail is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and target. No extraneous words or information, earning full points for conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on return behavior, error conditions, or interaction with other signals in the viewer, so it is merely adequate.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'signals' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Add' and the resource 'signals' with the target 'waveform viewer', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'get_signal_value' or 'remove_breakpoints'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as if signals should be added before simulation starts or if duplicates are handled. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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