Sa Channel Power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that it reads the displayed trace (not a fresh acquisition) and mirrors SAStudio4's Channel Power method, but it does not state that it is a non-destructive read, whether a live connection/configured mode is required, or any rate/side-effect behavior. Some value, but a real gap for an unannotated tool.

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: the core definition comes first, with the SAStudio4-equivalence and Max Hold note as a compact parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the measurement window is well specified. Still, with zero annotations and no mention of connection/prerequisite state or how the optional trace/add_to_report parameters affect behavior, the definition leaves an agent guessing about invocation 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 description coverage is only 33% (center and bandwidth documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the two required parameters by defining the integration window as center ± bandwidth/2, which is genuinely additive. The remaining four parameters (note, label, trace, add_to_report) get no explanation in either place, though their names and defaults are largely self-evident.

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 gives a specific measurement verb (channel power integrated) plus the exact integration window (center ± bandwidth/2) and the data source (the displayed trace). This clearly separates it from a whole-span measurement, but it never names the closest sibling (sa_total_power) or sa_channel_table, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It hints at operating conditions — 'works on Max Hold and any span' — which tells the agent the measurement is robust across acquisition modes. However it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sa_total_power or sa_channel_table, and no prerequisites (e.g. must be connected and have a displayed trace) are stated.

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