vna_list_limits

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all defined limits' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any device connection requirements. This is a bare statement with no added behavioral context.

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 perfectly captures the essence of the tool in minimum space.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a very short description, the context is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'limits' refers to (e.g., frequency limits, amplitude limits), what the output structure might be, or any preconditions. The description is minimal but under-specified for a tool that has no structured metadata to rely on.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'all defined limits', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like vna_define_limit, vna_check_limits, and vna_clear_limits. It clearly communicates the operation's scope (listing, not checking or defining).

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. It lacks context such as 'use this to retrieve current limit definitions' or any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely states the action without situational advice.

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