vna_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state that no state changes occur, nor does it mention requirements like an active connection, potential side effects, or the format of the returned status. It only names the general content of the response.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and directly states the resource. There is no filler or redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, and the presence of two undocumented parameters, the description is under-specified. It omits what the status payload includes, whether host/port are optional or default to a local connection, and how connection or configuration errors are handled.

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 two parameters (host, port) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no information about whether these parameters are required, how they are used, or what defaults apply. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('VNA connection and configuration status'). This distinguishes it from siblings like vna_calibration_status (focused on calibration) and vna_connect (establishes a connection). The verb+resource pattern makes the purpose immediately clear.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active connection), exclusions, or alternative tools such as vna_get_full_state or vna_calibration_status. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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