afg2125_diagnose_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by enumerating the specific layers checked (USB CDC driver, COM port, VISA ASRL, PyVISA readiness), enriching the behavioral contract beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the complete scope in under 15 words, every word earning its place.

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 parameterless diagnostic tool with output schema and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the tool's scope. It names every component checked (driver, COM port, VISA ASRL, PyVISA) and leaves no material gap in understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds semantic context by listing what is inspected, which is more meaningful than the empty schema alone. Baseline 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and names the exact resource: 'AFG-2125 USB CDC driver, COM port, VISA ASRL, and PyVISA readiness.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnose_setup tools for other instruments and from general VISA listing tools.

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 intended usage is implied as a pre-flight or troubleshooting diagnostic for AFG-2125 setup, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not clarify how this relates to afg2125_connect or list_visa_instruments.

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