waver_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals behavior that affects agent expectations: matching is case-insensitive, nothing is decoded, operation is fast even on large files, and returned names are full names or unique suffixes. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 tight and front-loaded: it opens with the core question, then adds matching behavior, output semantics, and performance in just a few sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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?

For a simple listing/search tool, the description covers the essential purpose, filtering behavior, output-name semantics, and performance characteristics. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here, and the tool has no nested parameters or complex prerequisites.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain the `pattern` parameter well ('case-insensitive substring') and contextualizes `file` as a waveform/FST file. However, the `limit` parameter is never mentioned or described, leaving a clear gap for an agent trying to understand result truncation.

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 question, 'Which signals are in this waveform file?' and then explicitly answers the two use cases: listing all signals and checking for a signal named X. It also clarifies that this tool returns signal names that are compatible with sibling value/analysis tools, making its distinct role clear.

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 gives clear context: use it for header-only signal listing, especially on large designs, and pass a pattern to narrow results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'header-only' note implies that value decoding is outside this tool's scope.

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