vna_calibration_measure_standard

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 only states the action without mentioning whether measuring a standard affects calibration state, requires an active connection, or returns any data. This could be a read-only operation or a step that modifies calibration coefficients, and the description leaves that ambiguous.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core purpose. It contains zero filler or redundant phrasing, every word earning its place.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too terse to provide complete context. It doesn't explain how this step fits into the overall calibration workflow, what the user should expect after execution, or whether there are side effects on the instrument state. The short description may be enough for a trivial tool, but for a calibration step, more context is needed.

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 50%, with host and port undocumented in both schema and description. The description's only param-related content is listing the standard types, which duplicates the enum already in the schema. It adds no insight into the meaning or usage of the parameters beyond what is already structured.

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 action ('Measure') and resource ('calibration standard'), with the parenthetical enumerating the standard types (OPEN/SHORT/LOAD/THRU). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like calibration_start or calibration_apply, which handle different stages of calibration.

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 implies this is used during calibration to measure standards, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides no direct guidance for selection among the many VNA tools.

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