find_peaks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the operation finds local maxima and can filter by height, distance, or prominence, but it does not disclose return format, edge-case behavior, whether the signal string is a file path, or any other operational detail an agent would need before calling.

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, well-structured sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and optional filters are clearly appended.

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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, a one-sentence description is not enough. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only names three of the four parameters (height, distance, prominence) without explaining their meaning, units, or how they filter peaks. The required 'signal' parameter is implied but its type ambiguity (array versus string) is not addressed.

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 ('Find') and resource ('local maxima in a signal'), making the core function clear. It also mentions optional filtering criteria, but does not distinguish the tool from siblings like filter_signal or find_roots, leaving sibling differentiation to the agent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as filter_signal, find_roots, or peak-related siblings. The presence of optional filters is noted but without context on when those filters matter or what problem they solve.

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