Sa Results

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 discloses almost nothing beyond return content. It does not say that 'mode' changes instrument state, nor that 'add_to_report' writes into a report (a side effect), nor whether reading is safe/non-destructive. The mention of notices and overflow is the only behavioral flavor added.

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 scope statement is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long enumerations map to actual measurement coverage rather than filler. It is a single dense sentence with no boilerplate, though the comma-separated list borders on being a data dump.

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 cover the breadth of returned data. However, for a no-annotation tool with three undocumented parameters and mutation-adjacent options (mode switch, add_to_report), the definition leaves an agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 only 25%: only 'mode' is documented, while note, label and add_to_report are opaque. The description says nothing about any of the four parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a tool where three parameters have no explanation anywhere.

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 a concrete resource ('All results SAStudio4 currently shows, parsed') and enumerates the measurement domains covered (SA, IQS/DET, PN, HARM, MAP), so an agent knows this is the aggregate results reader. It is clear what data is retrieved, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as sa_channel_power, sa_measure, sa_trace_data or sa_peak_table, which could plausibly return overlapping subsets.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. an active measurement), and no exclusions. Given a crowded sa_* family with per-measurement siblings, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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