summarize_waveform

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real constraints beyond them: input must be UTF-8 CSV living in the working directory, and the time column must be in seconds. It does not cover failure behavior (missing file, malformed columns), but the safety profile is fully handled by annotations.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the computed statistics, then the data-source constraint, then the unit requirement. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters) and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the description names the computed metrics and the input format requirements. What is missing is how the file is located/resolved and what happens on parse errors, but the definition is largely sufficient to call it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the file is a UTF-8 CSV in the working directory and that the time column's unit must be seconds, which constrains the time_column parameter. It never explains that time_column is a header name, nor mentions the default 'time_s', so a meaningful gap remains.

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 concrete verb and resource: compute range, mean and RMS statistics over an existing UTF-8 CSV waveform in the working directory. It is distinguishable from siblings like capture_oscilloscope (which acquires data) because it explicitly operates on an already-present file. It stops just short of naming an alternative tool or stating file-discovery rules.

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 phrase '已有' (existing) implies this is for post-hoc analysis of files already on disk rather than for capturing new data, which is useful routing context against capture_oscilloscope. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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