get_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates a read-only, batch-fetching behavior ('Get current values of multiple signals'). It does not discuss error behavior or authorization, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 short, front-loaded with the API context, and every sentence adds value. The Args section is minimal and directly tied to the single parameter, with no redundant content.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter batch-read tool with an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values. The provided scope, parameter semantics, and batch behavior are sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'paths' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that paths is a list of VSS signal paths and giving concrete examples, making the parameter usage unambiguous.

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 a specific verb ('Get current values') and a clearly identified resource ('multiple VSS vehicle signals at once'). It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_signal by emphasizing the batch nature, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'multiple VSS vehicle signals at once' clearly implies this tool is for batch reads rather than single-signal reads, which differentiates it from get_signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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