waver_values

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

Annotations only convey read-only safety, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the half-open interval, optional end, human-readable time parsing, hex representation for wide values, and preservation of X/Z/enum/string values. This is rich, non-obvious behavior beyond the structured fields.

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, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The only flaw is minor redundancy: the opening question 'What values did this signal have...' is immediately restated as 'Answers "what did <signal> do between A and B?"'. All later sentences add distinct value.

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 output schema exists, return-format details are not required. The description covers the key invocation semantics: time parsing, interval bounds, optional end, value formatting edge cases, and routing to sibling tools. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly, including sensible handling of defaults like start=0 and max_changes=1000.

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 compensates well for start and end: it defines accepted time formats, window inclusivity, and optional end. However, max_changes is not explained beyond its title, and file/signal are left to inference, though those are largely self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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 clear verb and resource: it retrieves signal values over a time window, answering 'what did <signal> do between A and B?'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to waver_analyze for statistics and waver_value_at for a single time point.

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 names alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'For statistics instead of a change list, use waver_analyze; for one time point, waver_value_at.' It also gives concrete usage rules: time formats are human-readable or integer file ticks, the window is [start, end), and omitting end runs to the last change.

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