Export Derived Raw

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (write, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds two useful facts beyond them: the output is small/bounded and covers exactly one trace, so it cannot be used for multi-signal dumps. It still omits whether an existing file at the target path is overwritten, how the two path parameters interact, or what happens if the trace is unavailable.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, which is structurally sound. However, that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification for a four-parameter write tool rather than being genuinely economical.

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 mutation tool with 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and an ambiguous pair of path parameters, the description leaves too much unresolved: unclear raw_path vs output_path roles, no overwrite semantics, and no distinguishing context against sibling exporters. It is not adequate to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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 coverage is only 25%: signal, raw_path, and output_path have no descriptions, and the description addresses none of them. Critically, raw_path (required) and output_path (optional) are two path-like parameters whose relationship is left entirely unexplained, so the caller cannot tell which one receives the exported file.

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 concrete action and output ('Write a small ASCII raw file containing one trace'), but the term 'derived raw' is unexplained jargon and the description never distinguishes this from the near-identical sibling export_waveform_ascii. An agent can guess what it does but not why it exists alongside several other ASCII/CSV/SPICE exporters.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded export family (export_waveform_ascii, export_waveform_csv, export_waveform_spice, export_measures_csv). The 'one trace' phrasing implies a per-signal scope but never says when an agent should prefer this exporter over them.

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