Measure Bode Response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what raw_path is, whether it requires pre-existing simulation data, or what the operation returns.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the core concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness shades into under-specification rather than true concision.

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 measurement tool taking three undocumented required parameters with no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: how to source raw_path, whether a prior run is needed, and what the result contains. Annotations cover safety but nothing operational.

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 25% (just workspace_root), so the description must compensate for output, reference and raw_path. It names output/reference as the compared signals but says nothing about format, units, what raw_path points to, or whether these are net names or signal identifiers.

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 the computed quantity (Bode magnitude and phase) and the signals it is derived from (output/reference), which is more than a tautological restatement of the title. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like measure_step_response or measure_stability_margins, so the agent must infer the action.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. does a simulation or raw file need to exist first?), and no mention of alternative measurement tools. The agent gets no routing help at all.

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