vna_get_s_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns frequencies, magnitude, and phase, which is helpful, but it omits any side effects (e.g., triggering a sweep), prerequisites (e.g., connected instrument), or limitations (e.g., only current sweep data). This is a minimal disclosure insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it under-specifies critical information. It front-loads the main action but lacks structure or additional details, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness. Compare to well-structured descriptions that combine brevity with completeness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and operates in a complex VNA environment, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, units, prerequisites, or potential errors. The only context given is the data types (frequencies, magnitude, phase), which is a tiny fraction of what an AI agent would need.

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' is described). The description adds no meaning for 'host' and 'port', which are likely connection parameters. It only repeats the concept of 'S-parameter' without elaborating on the enum values or the role of the optional parameters. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('S-parameter data'), and clarifies the data content with '(frequencies, magnitude, phase)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vna_get_marker or vna_get_status, which target different data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with measurement tools like vna_measure_return_loss, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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. The description does not mention whether it requires a configured sweep or connection, nor does it reference sibling tools such as vna_configure_sweep or vna_get_marker. Users are left to infer usage context.

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