Create waveform oscilloscope

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it mentions the macOS microphone-permission prompt, the creation of a self-contained container, and that the output is a Null TOP. It describes the internal operator chain (Trail CHOP, CHOP-to-SOP, Geometry COMP, etc.), giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but the final sentence about scale and time_window is redundant with the schema parameter descriptions. It could be trimmed slightly without losing needed content, though it remains logically organized and free of fluff.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for such a complex tool: what it does, how it works (operator chain), output type, source choices and their implications (permission, testing), and differentiation from close siblings. With no output schema, the 'Output is a Null TOP' statement fills that gap. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All 8 parameters have rich descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage) that already explain their meanings, defaults, and underlying CHOP mappings. The description largely repeats this information (e.g., 'Scale is the vertical amplitude zoom; TimeWindow is the horizontal time span') without adding new parameter-level insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Build a time-domain audio waveform / oscilloscope' and immediately clarifies the exact nature (actual audio signal scrolling as a moving trace). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming create_spectrum, detect_onsets, and create_audio_reactive, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and names alternatives: 'the time-domain companion to create_spectrum's frequency bins and detect_onsets' transients' and 'Unlike create_audio_reactive (which renders a spectrum), this shows the raw waveform.' It also gives practical advice on choosing the source (e.g., oscillator for testing without permission).

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