Sample CHOP channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it reads 'current' values, implying a snapshot at the current frame, but doesn't disclose behaviors like error handling on invalid paths, default channel selection, or return format. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not rich.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the action ('Read current CHOP channel values') and includes relevant use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 four parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the overall purpose. It omits crucial details about how to select samples, whether channels are filterable, the default maxChannels behavior, and what the return structure looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and missing output schema.

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 only 25% (only 'path' is described), and the description itself does not explain any of the four parameters. It doesn't mention 'sample', 'channels', or 'maxChannels' semantics, leaving users without guidance on how to use these parameters. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool reads current CHOP channel values, with a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'CHOP channel values'. It also lists example use cases (audio levels, envelopes, beats, control signals, diagnostics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like creation, deletion, or inspection.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to read current CHOP channel values for various signal types. It doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives like td_inspect_operator, but the use cases imply a focused sampling scenario. No exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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