waver_open

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only. The description adds sequencing and contextual behavior: it is a first-step inspection call whose reported timescale/duration affect subsequent waver_* windows. It does not fully detail state/error behavior, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a sibling pointer. The opening rhetorical question is slightly redundant with the next sentence, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, and how it relates to sibling tools. It leaves out explicit file-format constraints, though this is a minor gap.

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 single required 'file' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the file is a waveform file and gives FST as an example, but it does not clarify path expectations, accepted formats beyond FST, or how the parameter relates to the reported duration/timescale.

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?

Description clearly identifies waver_open as the tool that opens/inspects an unexamined waveform file and reports contents, simulation duration, and timescale. It also distinguishes itself from waver_search, which lists individual signals, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting 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?

States an explicit precondition: call it first for any file not yet inspected. It explains that the resulting timescale and duration frame every window passed to other waver_* tools, and points to waver_search as the alternative for listing signals.

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