get_marker

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the real burden and does add useful behavior: the delta marker's x/y are relative to its reference marker (and reference_marker is returned), an off marker returns null x/y, and level is in the current power unit (dBm by default). It stops short of covering error cases or what happens for an unassigned/nonexistent marker number.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and enriched with only relevant return-value semantics. No filler; the phrasing is dense but readable, with only minor awkwardness in wording such as reading fields 'together'.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by explaining the returned shape (mode enumeration, x/y units, delta relativity, off-marker nulls). However, 'trace' is listed but never explained, and there is no mention of failure behavior for an invalid or unassigned marker, leaving gaps for a read tool whose return values are otherwise undocumented.

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 100%, with both parameters (marker 1-10, instrument name/default) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema — its mentions of mode and reference_marker refer to returned fields, not inputs.

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?

A specific verb ('Read') plus a specific resource ('one marker') and an enumeration of the returned state (mode, trace, x, y) make the purpose unambiguous. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as get_ad_marker, get_emi_marker, or get_marker_ndb, so the agent must infer which variant applies.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions; it never states that this is the plain/standard marker read versus the AD, EMI, or NdB marker variants that appear as siblings. An agent can infer 'use this to read a marker', but nothing routes it among the alternatives.

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