decode_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose key behavior: the output is downsampled and shows decoded-vs-true, and the operation depends on a fitted decoder. However, it does not mention side effects, failure conditions, or whether the session must be open, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point because the brevity also contributes to missing parameter and usage context, but as concise prose it is well structured.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, prerequisites like an open session or fitted decoder, and a fuller description of the returned preview, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it names none of session_id, t0, duration_s, or max_points. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema and leaves the agent guessing what each parameter means.

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 names a specific verb ('decode'), a resource ('window'), and clarifies this is a preview ('downsampled decoded-vs-true preview'), which separates it from fitting and plotting tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the preview phrasing distinguishes it enough to be clear.

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 use after a decoder has been fitted, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not contrast against siblings like plot_decoding or evaluate_cross_session. An agent must infer the intended workflow without any exclusions or alternatives.

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