waveform_zoom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal details. It does not mention what the tool returns (despite having an output schema), whether the operation is persistent, what happens if start_time exceeds end_time, or if this affects simulation state versus just the view.

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 appropriately brief with no wasted words. It uses a docstring-style 'Args:' section which efficiently maps parameters to their example values. Every element serves a purpose: the first sentence defines the action, while the Args section provides critical format examples.

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 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameter semantics through examples, and since an output schema exists, it need not detail return values. However, it lacks completeness regarding error conditions, side effects, or behavioral edge cases that would help an agent use the tool robustly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), but the description compensates effectively by providing concrete examples ('0ns', '100ns') for both parameters. These examples clarify the expected string format and time unit syntax, which would otherwise be ambiguous given the generic 'string' type in the schema.

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 sets the 'waveform viewer time range' with the parenthetical '(zoom to region)' clarifying the specific action. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like waveform_add_signals or take_waveform_screenshot by focusing specifically on the time range/zoom aspect of the viewer.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While distinct from siblings, there is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active simulation or waveform viewer), forcing the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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