probe_timeseries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool samples a field value and returns a dict with times and values arrays, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or if any permissions are required. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail on side effects or idempotency.

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 consists of three short sentences, each adding value: the first states the action, the second provides a use case, and the third specifies the return format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and 3 required, and an output schema exists (which describes return values), the description covers the core purpose but omits details on optional parameters and file specification. It is minimally complete but leaves users needing to infer from the schema or context.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'field_name' and 'point' correspond to the field value and fixed spatial location, and 'timesteps' come from the file. However, it does not explain parameters like 'files', 'file_pattern', or 'time_range', leaving their purpose unclear.

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 uses the specific verb 'Sample' and identifies the resource as 'field value at a fixed point across timesteps'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on time series extraction at a point, unlike other tools that handle spatial interpolation or rendering.

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?

The description provides a concrete use case ('monitoring pressure/velocity at a sensor location over time'), implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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