scan_spectrum

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds real value beyond that: the device is left paused by default, resume_after restarts the display sweep, and input mode/RBW/processing are deliberately untouched. It does not state permissions or what happens on failure, but the side-effect profile is well disclosed for a mutation.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct operational information, with the core acquisition behavior front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the schema, though the sentence fragments are slightly clipped.

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 no explanation, and the sweep/pause behavior is covered. The gaps are the undocumented save/filename/include_points parameters and the absence of any routing guidance against the closely named sibling capture_spectrum.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate; it usefully clarifies the points cap (Basic <=290, Ultra <=450) and the resume_after semantics, and confirms endpoints are integer Hz. It says nothing about save, filename, or include_points, leaving three of seven parameters with no explanation 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: acquiring a new dBm spectrum with paired frequencies/levels. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling capture_spectrum, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 implies usage through behavior notes ('default leaves device paused', 'resume_after restarts the configured display sweep'), which tells the agent when to pass resume_after. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over capture_spectrum or configure_measurement, and no prerequisites are given.

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