vna_calibration_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but doesn't disclose what the status output includes (e.g., valid/invalid, pass/fail), whether it requires an active connection, or if there are any side effects. There is no mention of error conditions or handling of uncalibrated states.

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 only one sentence long, which is excessively terse. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices critical content; it is more under-specified than concise. A useful description would include at least a brief note on the return value or parameter roles, but it provides none.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. It lacks information about return value shape, prerequisites, or typical usage context. Given the large sibling set with overlapping functions (e.g., vna_get_status), the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

The schema includes two parameters (host, port) with no description coverage. The tool description does not explain how these parameters are used, whether they are optional (required parameters: 0), or what values they accept. While 'host' and 'port' are conventional, the agent lacks context on their role in the calibration status check, such as whether they specify the instrument address.

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 function: retrieving the calibration validity status. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('calibration validity status'), which differentiates it from generic operations like 'get_status' slightly, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling calibration tools. The term 'validity' adds a bit of specificity over the raw name, so it's not a pure tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this should be called after calibration, before measurements, or if it requires a connection. The sibling list includes calibration-related tools, but no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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