getRiseFallTime

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'compute' without revealing side effects, data requirements, or operational context (e.g., whether it reads from a run, requires simulation results, or is read-only). Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but insufficiently covers the tool's functionality given 7 parameters. It is not verbose, but brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context such as prerequisites, parameter roles, and usage scenarios. For a tool with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is highly incomplete.

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 explain parameter meanings but does not. It adds no information about what 'vector', 'plot', 'run_id', 'raw_path', 'step_index', 'low_threshold_pct', or 'high_threshold_pct' represent or how they affect rise/fall time calculation.

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 verb 'compute' and the resource 'first rise/fall times' within the context of 'transient response'. It distinctly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like getBandwidth or getSettlingTime that compute other metrics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for transient simulation data), constraints, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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