get_signal_transitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the strict closed range, the default 1000 cap, the truncated=true/hint convention, that transition_count is always the total, that predecessor is kept separate, and that FSDB support depends on a runtime flag. This is substantial transparency, though FSDB failure behavior remains slightly underspecified.

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?

Three sentences pack a lot of relevant behavioral information without filler. The parenthetical-heavy middle sentence is dense, but every clause adds value. The core operation is stated first, followed by edge-case semantics.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers the key return-related behaviors: truncation, hint marking, transition_count semantics, and predecessor handling. It is slightly vague about what happens when FSDB support is disabled, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 start_time_ps, end_time_ps, and max_transitions with type and unit details, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: the strict closed window, the default cap behavior, the truncated hint, and the separate predecessor rule. It does not add much on wave_path/signal_path, but those are self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('transitions for a signal') with a precise time range and cap behavior, making the tool's core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_signal_at_time or get_signals_around_time, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 description implies when the tool is appropriate—any time a signal's transitions over a range are needed—and provides guidance like 'prefer narrowing the time range' and 'Raise explicitly only for deliberate bulk extraction.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_signal_at_time or get_waveform_summary.

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