get_waveform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important side effects: it does not stop acquisition, enables disabled channels, changes transfer settings, and that raw_data=true saves JSON and returns metadata/path, never samples. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 dense with useful information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It uses several short sentences that are efficient but slightly fragmented; each sentence earns its place, though a more consolidated structure would improve readability.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, raw_data mode, and an alternative tool, making it largely complete for a simple two-parameter tool. However, it does not clearly describe what the normal (non-raw_data) response contains beyond 'suppressing unreliable interpretation', and 'NORM screen data' may be cryptic without additional context. An explicit return-value description would make it fully complete.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by clarifying raw_data behavior ('saves JSON and returns metadata/path, never samples') beyond the schema's brief note. The channel parameter is self-explanatory via its enum values and the NORM screen context, though the description could have added more explicit channel guidance.

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 tool's function: 'Analyse NORM screen data (DHO 1000, DS1000Z up to 1200 points)'. It uses a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource ('NORM screen data'), and it explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool download_waveform by saying 'Use download_waveform for memory'.

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 explicit usage context and preconditions: 'Does not stop acquisition; stop first for consistency' and 'Enables disabled channels; acquisition may be needed'. It also names the alternative tool (download_waveform) and the condition for choosing it, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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