measure_step_responseMeasure step-response scalars from a raw waveform file and signal, returning key metrics for control and circuit analysis.
Step-response scalars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | Yes | ||
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the behavioral profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as whether it operates on existing simulation data, what 'scalars' it returns, or any prerequisites. A 3 is warranted since annotations do the heavy lifting but the description adds nothing extra.
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?
The description is a single fragment with no structure or front-loading. While technically concise, it is under-specified rather than efficient, and doesn't earn its place as a helpful definition.
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?
Given three parameters (two required with unclear semantics), no output schema, and a terse fragment, the description is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly. It doesn't explain what scalars are returned or how the required signal and raw_path are used.
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 33%, so the description should compensate for the two undocumented required parameters (signal, raw_path). It provides no information about what 'signal' refers to, what format 'raw_path' expects, or how workspace_root interacts. This is a significant gap for required parameters.
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?
"Step-response scalars." restates the tool name as a noun phrase without a verb. A reader learns it relates to step-response measurements and returns scalars, but the description doesn't clarify how it differs from measure_waveform or measure_bode_response.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the other measure_* siblings or prepare_step/run_simulation. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.