get_signal_quality

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

No annotations. The description implies a read operation but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what 'signal quality' entails beyond artifact detection. Lacks behavioral traits like whether it uses current device connection.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly expanded to cover context, but remains concise.

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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'signal quality' metrics are, how artifacts are reported, or how to interpret results. Given sibling tools, more context about when to use this specific signal quality check would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. It implicitly suggests no input needed, but does not clarify that it operates on the current device state.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('electrode signal quality and detected artifacts'), with specific examples like blink and railing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_band_powers or get_brain_state, which have overlapping themes.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_brain_state or get_band_powers). No exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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