vna_check_limits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action without noting whether it is read-only, what happens on pass/fail, whether a connection is required, or how limits are referenced. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 with no wasted words. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized for a simple action, though it sacrifices important context that would make it more useful.

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, no output schema, and a tool with a required parameter, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't describe return values, prerequisites (e.g., defined limits), side effects, or error conditions, leaving an agent without enough information to use it confidently.

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 only 33% (only s_param has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Host and port are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage or clarify how s_param relates to the 'measurement'.

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 action ('Check') and object ('measurement against defined limits'), distinguishing it from limit-definition tools like vna_define_limit. However, it doesn't specify the outcome format (pass/fail, values) or what kind of measurement is involved, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like vna_get_s_parameter or vna_measure_return_loss. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that limits must already be defined) or how it relates to sibling limit tools.

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