wave_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'read' (suggesting non-destructive) and 'bounded' (implying limits), but does not disclose details about pagination, direction, max_changes, cursor behavior, or any side effects. The schema reveals parameters like direction and max_changes, but the description does not explain their behavioral implications.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Read bounded waveform transitions') and then specifies key requirements. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (multiple parameters, output schema, sibling tools), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, direction semantics, or when to use this tool over alternatives. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of context in the description.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only names three required parameters (signals, start, end) without explaining their meaning or format. Other parameters such as cursor, wave_id, direction, and max_changes are not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the action: 'Read bounded waveform transitions.' This uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('waveform transitions'), giving a clear purpose. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wave_value or wave_compute, the phrase 'bounded' hints at a scoped read, which helps distinguish it from other wave-related tools.

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 only states 'Request requires signals, start, and end,' which specifies input requirements but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wave_value or wave_compute. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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