waver_analyze

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the window is [start, end), omitting end runs to the signal's last change, times accept human-readable strings or integer ticks, and the tool produces a summary rather than a list of changes. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a memorable question, then moves from purpose to window semantics to alternatives. Each sentence adds information and the inline examples compress a lot of meaning without bloating the text.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value details are already covered. The description supplies everything else needed to call the tool correctly: what it computes, how the window works, accepted time formats, and which sibling tools to choose instead. There are no material gaps for an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

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 carries the burden. It fully explains the start/end semantics including inclusivity, the time formats, and the meaning of signal via repeated '<signal>' examples. The only gap is that the required 'file' parameter is never directly mentioned, though it is fairly inferable from the waveform-analysis context.

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 and resource: it summarizes a signal window with statistics, and enumerates concrete questions it answers (period, frequency, duty cycle, min/max/mean, value distribution). It also explicitly differentiates itself from waver_values and waver_latency, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool ('summarizes a window instead of listing changes') and names alternatives with their conditions: use waver_values for a raw change list and waver_latency for edge-to-edge timing. This gives an agent actionable selection criteria rather than leaving inference to chance.

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