Get Signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns an error when no signal database is present and notes that list_signals will report the absence directly. This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover all error cases or side effects (e.g., permission requirements), which is acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately addressing usage constraints and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core use case, error condition, and the correct alternative for a specific scenario. An agent has all necessary information to call this tool 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 already describes the block parameter as the auto-name from list_blocks, and the description merely restates 'addressed by block name' without adding new syntax or format details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra value.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('signal'), and clarifies addressing by block name. It also distinguishes from set_signal and list_signals by implying read-only behavior and direct value retrieval, making it unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the tool only works with a connected signal database, and that models created via create_project lack this database. It further advises using list_signals to check and read_output_file for self-made model results, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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