Capture statistics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context as a wrapper, but doesn't reveal additional behavioral details like what the output contains or whether it affects device state.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and omits any redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description fails to document two of the four parameters and does not clarify what 'JS220 statistics' entails, leaving some gaps.

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 explain all parameters. It explains frequency_hz and duration_s (sampling rate and time), but provides no information about device_path or configure_auto_range, leaving them ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool captures JS220 statistics with parameters duration_s and frequency_hz, and identifies itself as a wrapper around measure_energy, which differentiates it from that sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from other siblings like record_jls.

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 implies usage when frequency-based statistics are needed, referencing measure_energy as an alternative, but it lacks explicit guidelines on when not to use this tool or prerequisites.

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