vna_measure_return_loss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only restates the measurement action and does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., connection, calibration), side effects, or output format. This falls short of the rubric's requirement for behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, conveying the essential action and key parameter in a compact 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?

The tool has no output schema and only partial parameter documentation. The description does not explain the return value, connection requirements, or any constraints on frequency. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in a real context.

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 only 33% (only frequency_hz has a description). The description adds 'specific frequency' but says nothing about host or port, which are undocumented. It fails to compensate for the low schema 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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Measure') on a specific resource ('return loss (S11)') with a specific condition ('at specific frequency'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vna_measure_vswr and vna_measure_insertion_loss.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (measuring return loss at a specific frequency) and implicitly differentiates from alternatives by naming S11. It lacks explicit exclusionary guidance, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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