Sa Channel Table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits beyond structure: the measurement comes from a single trace read, it assumes a regular/evenly spaced plan, and Max Hold is needed for hopping signals. It omits instrument-state side effects, whether a connection/configure step is a prerequisite, and the reporting side effect implied by add_to_report.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core measurement is front-loaded and the operational parenthetical is placed exactly where it helps.

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 not spelling out return format in depth is acceptable, and the description still names the key outputs. But for an 8-parameter measurement tool with no annotations and 50% schema coverage, the definition should say more about prerequisites (connected/configured instrument) and sibling routing.

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 50% (label, note, trace, add_to_report are bare). The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond noting a single trace read, so four undocumented parameters remain opaque to the agent.

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?

States a specific measurement (channel power and peak) applied to a specific resource (a regular channel plan, from one trace read), which is more than a restatement of the name. It implies a boundary against the sibling sa_channel_power/sa_peak_table but never names the alternative, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the family.

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?

Gives one concrete usage condition: use a Max Hold trace for hopping transmitters, which is genuinely useful procedural guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over sa_channel_power, sa_peak_table, or sa_total_power, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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