get_pt5_header

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns header data but does not disclose behavior like file validation, error handling, or the fact that it does not modify the file. While the description is not misleading, it lacks detail on behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and content. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 file-read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of data returned (hardware info, calibration, triggers, scaling). While it could mention the return format briefly, the level of detail is sufficient given the tool's low complexity and the presence of sibling tools for other operations.

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 only parameter (file_path) has full schema coverage (100%) with the description 'Absolute path to the .pt5 file'. The tool description adds no new information about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('raw header and status packet metadata from a PT5 file'). It lists included details (hardware info, calibration data, trigger settings, scaling factors) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_pt5_channels' or 'get_pt5_samples' that handle other data aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_pt5_trend, export_pt5_csv). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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