get_signal_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and the artifact list adds useful context, but it does not state whether results are real-time or cached, whether it requires an active connection, or any calibration prerequisites.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds a returned signal or artifact category.

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 zero-parameter simple read tool, the description sufficiently enumerates what comes back even without an output schema. It could mention the granularity (per electrode vs aggregate) and whether an active device connection is required, but overall it is complete enough to select the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and fully described; baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource (get electrode signal quality) and enumerates the key returned signals: confidence and artifact types. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_band_powers and get_brain_state, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_band_powers or get_brain_state. The agent must infer that this is for electrode-level quality checks rather than neural-state or spectral queries.

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