Sa Marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the return (marker table with x/y), but says nothing about the mutating actions (set, clear_all, on/off) changing instrument state, whether a connection is required, or consequences of destructive actions like clear_all. That is a significant gap for a stateful control 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the operation list and return format. Dense but efficient; the enumeration serves a purpose in conveying capability scope.

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 6-parameter, multi-action tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers what the tool can do. It falls short on usage context and behavioral disclosure for a tool whose actions mutate state, leaving some gaps an agent would want filled.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters (trace, value, action, marker, marker_type). The description's operation words loosely map to the 'action' enum values but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names the resource precisely (markers on the current graph, any mode) and enumerates the operations the tool performs (enable, place, peak search, to_center, delta tracking, etc.), so an agent understands this is the marker-control tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like sa_peak or sa_peak_table, which overlap in the peak/marker domain.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as sa_peak_table for reading peaks or sa_peak for peak search. The operation list hints at capability but gives no condition for selecting an action over using a sibling tool.

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