Sa Measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it usefully discloses a genuine side effect: entering Channel Power can silently change span/RBW. However, it says nothing about whether this instrument-controlling call requires an active session, blocking/settle behavior, or what state persists — notable omissions for a measurement tool that mutates instrument state.

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, zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the hazard caveat follows immediately. Every sentence 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 return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus the key state-change hazard. It stops short of covering prerequisites (connection state) and how the measurement variants relate to sibling tools, but it is close to sufficient for calling the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 63% and the description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the Channel Power span/RBW caveat; the 'kind' options and 'obw_xdb'/'chp_bandwidth' semantics live entirely in the schema. With 8 parameters and only partial coverage, the description leaves the undocumented fields (note, label, add_to_report) unexplained, but the baseline of 3 is warranted since the schema does much of the work.

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+resource: 'Run one of SAStudio4's own measurements (Meas menu) and read its result', which tells an agent exactly what happens. It anchors the tool to the instrument's Meas menu, but does not differentiate it from siblings like sa_channel_power or sa_total_power, which cover the same measurement domains.

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?

Usage is only implied via the '(Meas menu)' anchor and the narrow set of measurement kinds, so an agent can infer this is for SAStudio4's built-in measurement modes. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing this over sa_channel_power/sa_total_power, which is a real gap given the overlap.

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