measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that returned values use SI-suffixed keys and warns about quality validity. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires an active acquisition, or how errors are reported.

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 compact and front-loads the core action, followed by the measurement enum and output format. All sentences contribute value, though the line breaks could be more structured for 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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description must stand alone. It covers the key inputs and output format, but omits details such as error behavior, whether a waveform must already be acquired, and the exact shape of the returned object. Adequate but with clear 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?

The input schema provides zero descriptions, so the description compensates by listing the allowed measurement strings and the output key naming convention. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though the channel parameter is not further clarified.

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 action 'Measure the given channel' and enumerates the measurement types, making the primary function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like analyze_waveform or capture_waveform, so it misses full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about how it fits into a workflow. The list of measurements only hints at parameter selection, not tool selection.

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