Export Waveform Csv

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Write' is consistent with that. But beyond confirming a write, it says nothing about whether an existing CSV is overwritten, what happens if output_path is omitted, or where the file lands – gaps that matter for a mutating file-producing tool.

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 zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the under-specification elsewhere, but as pure conciseness it earns its place.

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, no output schema, and no annotation detail on file outputs, the definition should carry more weight. It omits what raw_path points to, the expected signals format, and output_path default/overwrite behavior, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 raw_path, signals, and output_path are undocumented in structured fields. The description's phrase 'selected signals' hints at the signals parameter but adds no syntax, format, or default information to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (write) and resource (signals) with a format (CSV), so the basic action is discernible. However, it is nearly a restatement of the name and does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like export_waveform_ascii, export_waveform_spice, or export_measures_csv that also serialize waveform data.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite several export siblings competing for the same task. The agent is left to infer selection 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.