get_waveform_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It communicates that the operation is read-only ('Return') and exposes the condition 'FSDB support depends on fsdb_runtime.enabled.' However, it does not explain what happens when fsdb_runtime.enabled is false, whether errors occur, or how limitations manifest.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the non-obvious FSDB runtime requirement is placed second without clutter.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description gives useful return-value examples and a key dependency warning. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves ambiguity around exact return structure, error behavior, and what 'depends on fsdb_runtime.enabled' means operationally.

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 input schema provides only 'wave_path' as a required string with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain the expected path format, supported waveform file types, or how wave_path interacts with the FSDB dependency, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('basic waveform metadata') with concrete examples ('format, duration, and top modules'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on signals, traces, or structural hierarchy.

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 is implied: call this when you need summary-level waveform metadata rather than signal-level analysis. The FSDB dependency hints at when the tool may not work, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or guidance on which sibling tools to choose instead.

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