vna_marker_bandwidth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only restates the purpose and gives a vague 'around peak' behavior. It does not disclose whether it modifies marker state, requires a connection, what it returns, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the name.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and default value. No filler or redundancy; every word is meaningful.

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?

The tool is simple but still lacks essential context: it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a bandwidth value), whether it uses an existing marker or searches for the peak, or the required setup. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: marker_num and bandwidth_level_db have descriptions, while host and port are not described (though likely standard connection params). The description adds slight context via 'or specified', indicating that bandwidth_level_db is customizable. Overall, it adds marginal value over the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool finds -3dB (or specified) bandwidth around a peak, using a specific verb ('find') and resource ('bandwidth'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vna_marker_search_min/max, which locate minima/maxima, and vna_get_marker, which reads marker values.

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?

Usage is implied: one would use this when needing bandwidth information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative marker tools, no prerequisites (e.g., setting a marker or finding a peak first), and no mention of exclusions. It relies on the user's inference from the tool name.

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