sw_interference_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses read-only nature ('只读已落盘的标量'), the formula for IoT, domain separation, and edge-case handling (samples at ±50 dB boundary and sentinel samples counted separately, noted in 'notes'). This substantially exceeds minimal transparency.

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 multi-paragraph but well-structured with bold headers and bullet lists. Every sentence adds value: purpose, domain definitions, computation details, and edge cases. It is dense yet efficient, with no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (two domains, a non-trivial formula, and edge cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary points: domain split, link='BOTH' requirement, IoT derivation, and notes behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description implicitly indicates that dataset_id identifies the dataset ('一个数据集的干扰画像'), but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format or how to obtain a valid ID. For a single obvious parameter, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 opens with '一个数据集的干扰画像：业务域 IoT + 测量域导频 SIR', explicitly stating the tool produces an interference profile for a dataset and identifies the two domains. This specific verb-like scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as sw_link_performance or sw_iot_convert.

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: it is read-only, and the measurement_domain columns only exist in data generated with link='BOTH', which is a prerequisite. It also warns against an incorrect computation ('不是 snr_dB 减 sinr_dB'), offering guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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