get_calibration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation does not open a port (no hardware side effect) and include_points=true escalates the payload to the full amplitude/frequency table. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the flag behavior, then the applicability constraint. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (metadata/ranges, or the full point table) and when the tool is applicable. The only shortfall is that the meaning of the 'channel' argument is left unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains include_points=true (returns the full measurement table) but says nothing about 'channel' — whether null means both channels, or what 1 vs 2 selects. Half the parameters are clarified, leaving a real gap.

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 and resource ('read measured power calibration metadata/ranges') and adds a distinguishing scope constraint ('without opening a port') that separates it from hardware-affecting siblings like preview_power or set_power. It never names a sibling directly, but the resource and constraint are specific enough to route correctly.

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?

The description gives a real precondition ('Applies to zero-offset SINE into a physical 50-ohm load through measured cables') and implies when the extra flag is wanted, but it does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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