openbci_signal

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions 'real-time' and 'from latest buffer' for band_power, but doesn't clarify if filter modifies data in place or returns filtered output, nor does it specify return format. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two succinct sentences with bullet points for operations. Front-loaded with overall purpose, no fluff.

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 no output schema, description omits what the tool returns (e.g., computed powers or filtered signals). It assumes board is already streaming but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites. Adequate for a tool with 6 parameters but incomplete on returns.

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 coverage is high (83%), so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra: it summarizes operations and mentions 60Hz notch, but schema already enumerates filter types and parameters with descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Real-time EEG signal analysis via BrainFlow DataFilter' and enumerates two specific operations (band_power, filter). Distinguishes from sibling tools (board, stream, export, etc.) which handle different aspects of OpenBCI.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Implicitly, it's for signal processing, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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