track_signal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the parameter roles and transformation (raw to physical), but it does not specify important details like whether the operation is read-only (no destructive hint), how 'show' manifests (return format, real-time vs historical), or prerequisites (e.g., a capture must be active). The description is adequate but leaves gaps in transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences of purpose followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value—the first states the action, the second gives the use-case context. No fluff or repetition. The docstring format is clean and easy to parse.

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 description explains the 'what' and 'why' well, but given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), it is incomplete on 'how'. It omits the output format (a table, plot, or sequence?), whether it operates on real-time or captured data, and any dependencies (e.g., a successful capture). This leaves the agent uncertain about invocation prerequisites and return handling.

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 bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. The description includes a parameter list with clear, concise explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'can_id: CAN message ID.'), far exceeding the schema's minimal title/type. It adds meaning, especially for scaling and byte order, which are nontrivial.

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 extracts a byte range from captured frames and shows value changes over time, using a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('byte range from captured frames'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'decode_frame' by emphasizing temporal tracking (over time) and correlation with physical inputs, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to observe a candidate signal while correlating with physical inputs.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (for exploratory analysis of a signal over time). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the given context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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