Sa Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only information retrieval by naming 'Instrument info' and listing observable values, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, whether it has side effects, or what the optional GNSS behavior means beyond the schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the subject as instrument info and then lists the returned fields compactly. There is no filler or redundant explanation, and every listed item earns its place.

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 the description need not explain return values; it still usefully previews the information available. The input schema fully covers the optional gnss parameter, and the description is complete enough for a simple info-retrieval tool, though it could mention the GNSS side effect or read-only nature.

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 the schema already fully documents the single optional gnss parameter. The description does not mention or clarify the gnss parameter at all, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates the instrument information returned: model, UID, versions, temperature, USB link, battery, clock, current mode, and checked menu items. This is clearly an instrument-info getter, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as sa_status, sa_state, or sa_get.

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 guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The tool's purpose implies it is for retrieving instrument information, but the description never says when to choose it over sa_status, sa_state, or other read-oriented siblings.

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