Godette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite (start_signal_logging) which is valuable context, but doesn't describe what the log contains, its format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose with a critical prerequisite, and the second sentence explains the optional filtering capabilities. No wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and prerequisites but lacks information about what the tool returns, the log format, or behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably returns runtime data, more context about the output would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions optional filtering by 'signal name or time' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the log of signals emitted during runtime.' It specifies the resource (signal log) and the action (get), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trace_signal_chain' or 'get_runtime_state' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides clear context for usage with the prerequisite 'requires start_signal_logging first' and mentions optional filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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