preview_power

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description reveals interpolation-only behavior, an output precision limit (1 mV amplitude quantization), and that the result is a prediction rather than a live measurement. These are meaningful fidelity caveats an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 with the core computation front-loaded and the caveats trailing. The opening 'Check generator identity' is slightly tangential to the tool's name but not wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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?

For a 3-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value (predicted power, quantized, not live) and the interpolation limitation. It is nearly complete, missing only input unit/range expectations that the schema also omits.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it partially does: it establishes the 50-ohm sine context and that frequency/power are interpolated. However, it never clarifies units, valid ranges, or the meaning of the channel enum, leaving real gaps for frequency_hz and power_dbm.

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 computation ('calculate calibrated voltage for sine power into 50 ohms') plus a preliminary identity check, which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It implicitly contrasts with the write-capable sibling set_power by noting there are 'no writes', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a real usability boundary: 'Interpolates measured levels/frequencies; no extrapolation', which tells the agent the tool only works inside the calibrated measurement grid. It implies but does not explicitly state that set_power should be used when an actual change is desired.

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