waveform_add_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention idempotency, what happens if signal paths are invalid, UI update behavior, or the content of the output schema (which exists). Only mentions 'SimVision' as context for the target system.

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?

Extremely compact with no filler text. The 'Args:' structure efficiently documents parameters given the schema's lack of descriptions. Front-loaded with the core action sentence followed by parameter details. Could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Minimum viable for a 2-parameter tool with an output schema (which obviates the need to describe return values). However, given the EDA domain complexity and zero annotations, it lacks critical context: error handling for invalid signals, prerequisite state requirements, and relationship to the waveform viewer's lifecycle.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only), the Args section compensates by explaining that 'signals' expects signal paths and 'group_name' is for organization. This adds necessary semantic meaning missing from the structured schema, though it lacks format details (e.g., hierarchical path syntax) or default behavior when group_name is omitted.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Add signals') and target system ('SimVision waveform viewer'), providing specific verb and resource identification. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'watch_signal' or 'probe_control' that also handle signal monitoring.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'waveform_add_signals' vs 'watch_signal'), prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active simulation or waveform viewer session), or error conditions. The description assumes the user already knows the workflow.

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