vna_get_full_state

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'get' and mentions JSON output, but does not disclose whether a connection is required, the size or complexity of the returned state, or any side effects (which are likely none).

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 appropriately concise but sacrifices useful context that might be expected for a network-bound tool.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the host/port parameters, whether a connection must already exist, or what 'complete state' includes as JSON. This makes it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for host and port, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they are used, leaving the agent without essential information.

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 (get), the resource (complete VNA configuration state), and the return format (JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like vna_get_status (status only) and vna_save_state (saving to a file).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vna_get_status or vna_save_state. The description does not mention prerequisites, connection requirements, or suitable contexts.

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