Merge Waveforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds a genuine side-effect qualifier (no combined raw file is persisted), which is useful context, but it never explains what side effects the non-read-only annotation implies, so the disclosure is incomplete rather than contradictory.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere rather than being an under-specification problem in itself.

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 4-parameter tool with three undocumented arguments, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks the parameter meaning, invocation conditions, and side-effect details needed to call this correctly.

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%; only workspace_root is documented in the schema. The description's "two traces" loosely maps to left_path/right_path but never explains them, nor does it say what signal represents or how the paths are combined.

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?

The description names a verb plus resource ("Return two traces side by side"), so the basic action is discernible. However, it never reconciles the "merge" name with the "side by side" behavior, and it does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like compare_waveforms, plot_waveforms, or read_waveform. The purpose remains partially ambiguous.

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 use this tool, when to prefer an alternative, or what prerequisites apply. The only implicit guidance is the negative "without writing a combined raw file," which hints at a when-not condition but is never framed as usage direction.

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