sa_peak_tableIdentify the top 10 strongest signal peaks automatically. This tool reads the Peak Table, providing the number, frequency, and level for the dominant signals in your spectrum analyzer measurements.
Turn on SAStudio4's Peak Table (10 strongest peaks) and read it (n, frequency, level).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries the burden. It discloses that this mutates UI state (turns the table on) and what it reads (10 strongest peaks with three fields), which is useful. But it doesn't say whether the state persists, what happens if already on, or permission requirements.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with the action and result fields; zero wasted words.
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?
Output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained (though it lists them redundantly). With one parameter and an implied stateful toggle, the key missing piece is the meaning of show and whether reading depends on visibility, which leaves the definition only minimally complete.
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?
The single 'show' parameter has 0% schema coverage and the description never explains it. 'Turn on' implies show=true, but the semantics of show=false (hide? suppress display yet still read? disable?) are left completely ambiguous.
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 specific verb and resource: turns on SAStudio4's Peak Table and reads the 10 strongest peaks with named return fields (n, frequency, level). Clear what it does, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like sa_peak or sa_marker.
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 guidance on when to use this vs sa_peak, sa_marker, or sa_trace_data. Usage is only implied by the description; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.