Sa Trace Data

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a side effect ('Saves CSV + plot') and value semantics ('values include amp offset', 'X in seconds'). However it does not say whether it mutates device state or requires write access, and the save side effect largely restates the schema's own `save` description.

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?

Four compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Some phrases are telegraphic ('Spectrum graphs: peak, band power, occupied ranges') but each still earns its place by scoping the return values.

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 format needn't be explained, and the description usefully classifies graph types. But for a 9-parameter, annotation-free tool it omits the read-vs-write posture, the relationship of `save` to the active report, and unit/format expectations for start/stop.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters (plot, save, start/stop, trace, occupied_db, return_points). The description adds nothing parameter-specific — `note` and `label` remain unexplained in both places — so it sits at the baseline for high coverage.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Read a displayed trace of any graph') and specifies the data family in scope (spectrum graphs vs time graphs DET PvT/IQS IQ). It never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling sa_trace, so an agent must infer which one to call from name alone.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings (sa_trace, sa_read, sa_sweep, sa_marker). The spectrum-vs-time sentence explains what the returned values mean rather than when this tool is the right choice.

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