Sa Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: the tool 'navigates to it' before reading. However, it does not warn that supplying menu/mode/panel/dialog can switch the instrument's current mode or open a dialog, i.e. that a read can mutate UI/instrument state. No auth, timing, or failure behavior is mentioned.

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 with the verb first and the payoff (returned fields) last; no filler whatsoever.

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 explained, and the description does name them anyway. The gap is behavioral: for a 5-parameter tool whose optional selectors navigate modes, panels, and dialogs, the description never says that reading a control may change the instrument's UI state.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema with examples (RBW_Hz, 'System/Preference', markerBtn). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Read any control') and even enumerates the returned fields (value, options, caption, kind), which is unusually concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like sa_read, sa_results, or sa_state, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sa_set (the write counterpart) or sa_controls (which supplies the 'name' values). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.

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