capture_spectrum

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing real side effects: it 'briefly pause[s] and restore[s] previous running state' and, when save is set, writes CSV and metadata to the export directory. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false and gives the agent useful operational context the annotations do not.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The indentation/line-break artifact adds minor noise but nothing substantive is wasted.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description leaves the filename and include_points parameters unexplained and never explicitly routes to scan_spectrum, so it is adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter instrument tool.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains save's file-output behavior but says nothing about filename (format, location, default naming) or include_points, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Snapshot current actual dBm trace,' which is concrete and distinct from a scan. The line 'Does not guarantee a fresh scan' implicitly separates it from scan_spectrum, but it never names the sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

'Does not guarantee a fresh scan' tells the agent what this tool is not, hinting that scan_spectrum is the choice when freshness matters, but it never states that alternative or the condition that selects it. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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