inspect_waveform

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description goes well beyond them. It discloses that the read 'can take minutes,' 'may interrupt playback,' that marker/sequencer bits 'can change raw hashes without changing the lower 14-bit audio samples,' and that it 'does not measure RF output' – rich timing, side-effect, and semantic caveats an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Read stored I/Q samples and report hashes/ranges without modifying them') followed by caveats, each of which earns its place. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is behaviorally thorough: it covers timing, playback interruption, hash variance from marker bits, and non-measurement. The only shortfall is that the 'name' parameter's semantics are left entirely to the schema title.

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% for the single 'name' parameter and the description contributes no parameter information beyond 'Read stored I/Q samples.' With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate, and it does not – the agent gets no format, constraint, or meaning for 'name'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read stored I/Q samples and report hashes/ranges without modifying them.' The purpose is concrete and distinguishable, and 'This does not measure RF output' clarifies the boundary. However, it never names the closest sibling (list_waveforms/play_waveform) to route the agent explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The only guidance is the negative 'This does not measure RF output,' which implies the tool is for inspection rather than measurement. Usage is left to inference rather than stated against alternatives.

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