monitor_analog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns mean, RMS, peak-to-peak, standard deviation, and a downsampled preview rather than full data, and explains the rationale (keeping large acquisitions out of the context window). It does not mention auth, side effects, or error behavior, but for a monitoring read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second adds concrete return details and use case, and the third reinforces a key behavioral benefit. No filler or repetition.

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 tool has moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present). The description covers the main purpose, return contract, and design rationale. The main gap is parameter semantics, but the output schema likely covers return details. Overall it is a solid standalone 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives no specific explanation of channel, rate_hz, or duration_s beyond the overall waveform context. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description adds no meaningful semantics about units, bounds, or relationships, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 verb ('Acquire'), the resource ('finite analog waveform'), and the result ('return summary statistics'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by saying it returns summary statistics and a downsampled preview instead of the full sample array, which distinguishes it from read_analog.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Built for the "is my sensor behaving?" question' and emphasizes avoiding large context-window usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like read_analog for raw samples.

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