Get Waveform

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly conveys a read-only operation and adds one useful behavioral fact: the full action time series is returned, not a summary or partial view. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing name, permissions, or payload size.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the amount of information the agent needs, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter count is one, which keeps the required scope small, but the description omits how to identify the target waveform and how this call relates to list_waveforms / get_waveform_status. Adequate for a simple read, with clear gaps.

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% for the single `name` parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never mentions the parameter or clarifies whether `name` is the waveform's display name, an ID, or a path. The agent is left to guess how to identify the waveform.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: view a saved waveform's complete action time series (查看已保存波形的完整动作时间序列). '已保存' (saved) distinguishes it from get_waveform_status and start_waveform, but the description does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from. The core purpose is nonetheless clear.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as list_waveforms or get_waveform_status. The word 'saved' weakly implies a prerequisite (the waveform must already have been created/saved), but the agent must infer this.

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