Play custom waveform

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds important behavioral context: total duration is capped at 10000ms, a safe nonzero intensity is required, and the tool never changes intensity. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent assess safety and side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: the segment types, single-channel scope, duration cap, and intensity safety precondition. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with a rich nested schema and four segment variants, the description covers the key cross-segment constraints: total duration cap, channel scope, and the critical safety requirement that intensity is not changed. It leaves some operational details to the schema and does not describe result/error behavior, but the essential invocation guidance is present.

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 input schema fully documents each segment type and its parameters. The description's mention of segment kinds adds framing but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compile and play semantic waveform segments' on one channel. It also lists the segment types (ramp, hold, pulse, silence), which distinguishes it from the sibling dglab_play_waveform tool.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for custom waveform segments, implicitly separating it from playing saved/predefined waveforms via dglab_play_waveform. It also states key preconditions: a safe nonzero intensity is required, and the tool never changes intensity. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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