Evaluate Waveform Expression

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this may mutate state, but the description offers nothing about what is modified, where results land, or whether evaluation has side effects on the raw file. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this description adds essentially zero behavioral context for a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – the brevity comes at the cost of information an agent needs. A few additional clauses would earn their place here.

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?

A four-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain the expression language and expected return; it does neither. The undefined output format is especially costly since no output schema exists to fall back on.

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% – raw_path, expression, and max_points are all undocumented in the schema. The description's phrase 'built from raw signal names' weakly hints that the expression references signals inside the raw file, but gives no syntax, units, or meaning for max_points, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 verb ('evaluate') and a resource ('expression built from raw signal names'), but 'evaluate' is left undefined – it's unclear whether this computes derived samples, returns a scalar, or writes to the raw file. Against siblings like read_waveform and measure_waveform, the distinction is not made explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over read_waveform, measure_waveform, plot_waveforms, or export_derived_raw, all of which operate on the same signal data. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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