get_signal

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

Given no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: error conditions (unknown name, window_too_large), return format with units/timestamps, sample rate variability, decimation behavior (downsampled to max_samples, truncated flag), and warning about point reads. No contradictions.

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?

Approximately 12 sentences in short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary repetition; every sentence adds value (error handling, sampling details, usage constraints). Efficient despite comprehensive information.

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?

Despite no output schema and 4 parameters, description covers return format, errors, sampling behavior, and constraints. No gaps remain for agent to infer dangerously; complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions), but description adds significant context: name must be exact and case-sensitive from list_available_signals, max_samples explanation (downsampling cap, trade-offs), start/end are inclusive ISO 8601. Adds rationale and usage tips beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'retrieves', resource 'one signal over a time range', and return format 'timeseries with explicit units and timestamps'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (list_available_signals, run_diagnostic_rules, summarize_session) by focusing on signal data retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit guidelines: name must exactly match list_available_signals, unknown name returns error, sample rate differences, point reads (actual_sample_rate_hz null) should not be used for timing, downsampling behavior, time range bounding to avoid errors. Clearly tells when and how to use the tool.

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