sw_sweep_snr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default sweep range (-5 to 35 dB), the paired-channel methodology to avoid sampling noise, and provides interpretive guidance for the key output field (efficiency_vs_shannon trend). This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 uses three short paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose and then adding contextual details. Every sentence contributes value, including the explanation of the paired-channel effect and the output interpretation. It is appropriately sized and well-structured without unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description provides strong purpose, behavioral context, and output interpretation. However, the lack of explanation for most parameters creates a significant gap for correct invocation. The output schema partially compensates for return value understanding, but the parameter gap lowers completeness.

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 0% and the description only elaborates on the SNR list semantics by mentioning setting working-point SNRs and the default range. It does not explain dataset_id (the only required parameter), mcs_table, or max_samples. This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance for 3 of the 4 parameters, despite the schema offering only titles and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool sweeps SNR and outputs spectral efficiency/throughput vs SNR curves, including the specific metric types (Shannon, actual, throughput, MCS). It is a specific verb+resource+scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sw_throughput or sw_link_performance, so it does not earn 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use: it is described as 'the most standard figure in wireless papers' and explains the benefit of using the same channel batch for paired points. It does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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