Sa Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether a live connection/session is required, or what happens if the instrument is disconnected or in an unexpected mode. Listing return fields is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is a single compact fragment with no padding, which is efficient, but the absence of any verb or framing sentence means it reads as a field dump rather than a properly front-loaded definition. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity, not from good editing.

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 is not obligated to explain return values, and for a zero-parameter read the required coverage is small. Still, the description effectively restates output field names while omitting any statement of the tool's action or preconditions, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and additionalProperties:false confirms a parameterless call.

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 enumerates the fields the tool reports (mode, frequency range, RBW/VBW, reference level, offset, ADC overflow), which conveys that this is a current-instrument-status read. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish sa_status from sibling tools like sa_info, sa_state, or sa_get, which likely read overlapping state.

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 such as sa_info, sa_state, sa_results, or sa_get. The agent must guess from the field list alone whether this is the canonical status query or a niche subset.

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