Compare decoded versus actual behavioral dimensions over a chosen window to assess decoding accuracy, using test-split data for honest validation.
Figure: decoded against actual behaviour for a window (max 60 s), one panel per dimension. Requires fit_decoder first. Pick a window in the test split for an honest picture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| t0 | Yes | ||
| duration_s | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the max 60 s window constraint and the prerequisite, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the plot is displayed or saved, or any side effects, but for a plotting tool this is acceptable.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisite and usage guidance. 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?
For a plotting tool with 3 simple params, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and window selection. It lacks explicit return/output info, but plotting tools typically display figures, and the output schema is absent. The max 60 s constraint is mentioned, which is key.
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. It explains t0 and duration_s implicitly via 'window (max 60 s)' and mentions session_id contextually. However, it doesn't explicitly map each parameter to its meaning, leaving some ambiguity about duration_s default and max.
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 plots decoded values against actual behavior for a window, with one panel per dimension. It distinguishes itself from siblings like decode_window (which likely returns values) and plot_psth/plot_raster (which plot other data types).
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?
Explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires fit_decoder first' and gives guidance on window selection ('Pick a window in the test split for an honest picture'). This tells the agent when to use it and what to check before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.