vna_marker_search_min

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., marker movement), required state (e.g., a sweep already present), or output/return format. This is a minimal, non-explanatory statement.

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 sentence and front-loaded with the key action, but it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary context for brevity. It is not as sparse as a tautology, but it could be more informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool's complete behavior is unclear. The description does not explain what 'minimum value' refers to, whether the marker is moved, or what the user will receive, leaving significant gaps.

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 marker_num has a description), and host/port are undocumented. The description itself does not mention any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage or add clarity beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a resource ('minimum value in sweep') and the 'minimum' keyword distinguishes it from the sibling vna_marker_search_max. However, it omits that it operates on a marker (despite the name/parameter) and does not clarify what the search returns, preventing a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus vna_marker_search_max or other marker tools. No context is given about prerequisites such as an active sweep, a connected device, or the meaning of the return value, leaving the agent to guess.

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