vna_define_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Define pass/fail limit' without explaining whether existing limits are overwritten, whether the limit persists across sessions, what happens on validation errors, or any side effects on measurement workflows. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, direct sentence: 'Define pass/fail limit for measurements.' It is front-loaded with the verb, contains no filler, and every word earns its place. It is an example of appropriate conciseness.

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 that this tool has five required parameters, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns after success, whether limits are cleared or overwritten, or how it interacts with other limit-related tools. The minimal description relies entirely on the schema, leaving important context gaps.

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%, with each of the five parameters having a basic description (e.g., 'Limit value in dB', 'Type of limit'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the term 'pass/fail limit', but since the schema already documents all parameter names and purposes, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify relationships like start frequency must be below stop frequency, but this is not required for a passing score.

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 the specific verb 'Define' and identifies the resource as 'pass/fail limit for measurements', making its core purpose clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like vna_check_limits, vna_clear_limits, and vna_list_limits. However, 'define' is slightly ambiguous—it could mean create, set, or configure—but in context it is reasonably precise.

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 versus alternatives such as vna_check_limits or vna_clear_limits, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. It simply states what the tool does without addressing usage context.

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