Sa Total Power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses side effects (restoring detector and trace type), automatic validation against the DUT rating, and returned warnings on mismatch. It omits any auth/permission or rate-limit context, but the operational behavior is unusually well covered.

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 method, validity rule, and prerequisites lead the description, so the important routing information is front-loaded. It is dense but each sentence carries substantive content; the trailing environment/prerequisite sentences are slightly less essential but not wasteful.

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 method, warnings, and prerequisites adequately. The one soft spot is that the 'offset (attenuator)' setup instruction references something not present in the schema, leaving an agent to resolve it out-of-band.

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 57%, so roughly half the parameters rely on the schema. The description adds the span coverage requirement (mapping to bandwidth) and mentions an 'offset (attenuator)' that does not actually appear as a parameter, and it omits hold_s, label, note, and add_to_report entirely. It adds some meaning but leaves real gaps and one ambiguous reference.

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 states a specific measurement (absolute band power) and details the method (RMS detector + Average trace with a peak cross-check), which clearly differentiates it from simpler siblings like sa_peak or sa_channel_power by intent. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or contrast case, so the agent must infer the distinction from domain knowledge.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Set the span so the whole signal is inside it, and the offset before calling') and a validity rule (only RMS is valid when peak/RMS differ >3 dB), which implies usage context. But it never says when to choose this tool over sa_channel_power or sa_measure, nor any exclusions.

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