get_signal_at_time

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does communicate a read-only query and an FSDB runtime dependency, but it omits the return format, exact-match-versus-nearest-time behavior, error behavior for unsupported FSDB files, and what happens when the signal cannot be resolved. This is too thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation and scope, and the second adds a necessary runtime caveat. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover both selection and invocation context. The schema covers time_ps and signal_path well, but wave_path is left undefined, and the return value/behavior is not described. An agent would likely be uncertain about what this tool returns and how to supply wave_path correctly.

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 schema already documents time_ps and signal_path in detail, and the description adds only the general notion of 'signal value' and the default unit 'ps'. The wave_path parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not compensate for it, so parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 identifies the verb ('Query'), the resource ('a signal value in a waveform file'), and the key qualifier ('at a specific time in ps'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_signal_transitions and get_signals_around_time through the singular value/point-in-time framing, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 intended use case—fetching a single signal's value at one point in time—is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as get_signals_around_time or get_signal_transitions. The FSDB dependency note is a config caveat, not usage routing.

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