Compare Waveforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the comparison is on means rather than full waveform traces; it does not say what is returned, whether a tolerance/significance notion applies, or how mismatched or missing signals are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits information an agent would need, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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?

With four parameters at 25% coverage and no output schema, the description needed to explain both the comparison result (e.g. mean values or a verdict) and the file/signal argument conventions. It provides neither, so an agent cannot predict what comes back or verify it passed the right inputs.

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 only 25% (just workspace_root), so the description carries the burden for signal, left_path and right_path. 'One signal in two raw files' loosely implies those three parameters but gives no format for the signal name or path, leaving the required arguments effectively undescribed.

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?

Names a specific verb (compare) and a specific subject (the means of one signal across two raw files), which is enough to separate it from compare_schematics and merge_waveforms. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it does not reach the 5 tier.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus merge_waveforms, compare_schematics, or measure_waveform, and no prerequisites (e.g. that both files must be raw simulation outputs sharing the same signal). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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