query_timeseries

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: multi-instance messages are returned one instance at a time with a default of the first, values are index-aligned with times_s, and output is decimated to at most max_points. These are traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral caveats in a logical order with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration of VIBE/IMU/GPS/MAG/BAT/XKF examples is slightly heavy but earns its place by clarifying what 'multi-instance' means.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, and the key runtime behaviors are covered. The gap is parameter documentation: for a 7-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, five parameters are left for the agent to infer from names alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, yet it only clarifies two of seven parameters (instance default and max_points decimation). Path, message_type, fields, start_s, and end_s get no explanation at all, leaving most of the schema undocumented.

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 resource and scope: 'Numeric time series for a message type and fields,' and adds the intent 'for drilling into a finding.' No sibling tool overlaps directly, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from near-neighbors like log_summary or analyze_log.

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 phrase 'for drilling into a finding' implies when the tool is appropriate, and 'see available_instances' points to a related call. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives among the eleven siblings, so usage is only implied.

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