ipa_psf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuine behavioral traits: results are ordered 'Newest first' and an empty result set produces a specific fallback (protocol plus whom to ask). It never states that the operation is read-only, what permissions or access scope are needed, or how many sessions are returned.

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 resource is front-loaded in the first two words, with returned fields, ordering, and the empty-state behavior following in compact parenthetical clauses. Dense but every clause carries information; only the inline 'for deconvolution' aside is slightly buried.

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?

Return content is described thoroughly enough that the absence of an output schema is tolerable, and the empty-state behavior is covered. But with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no clarification of the 'path' argument, an agent still lacks what it needs to construct a correct filtered call.

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 0% and all three parameters are bare titles, so the description must compensate — it partially does by indicating that scope and objective act as filters and by giving a concrete objective tag example ('100x-146-oil'). However, the 'path' parameter is never explained and is easily confused with the output field 'local path of each channel's PSF image', leaving one of three parameters genuinely ambiguous.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool yields — per-session FWHM in x/y/z per channel versus expected, chromatic shift, and the local PSF image paths — which makes the resource unmistakable even though no verb is stated. It does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as ipa_laser_power or ipa_equipment, so an agent must infer the boundary from domain nouns alone.

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 parenthetical 'for deconvolution' hints at the downstream use case, and the mention of filtering context (scope, objective tag, date) implies a lookup workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the twelve siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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