waver_plot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: lane rendering for different signal types, X/Z shading, decimation to ~10000 points, and the fact that the PNG is written to a temp file whose path appears in the summary. This exceeds what annotations alone provide and helps an agent predict the tool's output format and side effects.

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 dense but every sentence carries useful information: intended use, rendering behavior, time format, decimation, return payload, and alternatives. It is well front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value (image plus summary with temp-file path) and the decimation behavior. It covers the main parameter semantics, usage conditions, and sibling-tool differentiation well enough that an agent can correctly select and invoke the 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 must compensate. It adds valuable meaning for start/end (human-readable or integer ticks, half-open interval) and signal rendering behavior. However, it does not explicitly describe the `file` parameter or the exact signal naming syntax, though these are partially inferable from 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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: it plots signals as a PNG in a specified window. It also answers natural-language queries and describes per-signal rendering rules, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from waver_analyze and waver_values.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('show me <signal(s)> around time A'), and gives alternatives for statistics and exact values ('For statistics use waver_analyze; for exact values use waver_values'). It also clarifies window semantics and the effect of omitting end, leaving no ambiguity about invocation conditions.

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