afg2125_get_mode_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly which modes are read (AM, FM, FSK, sweep), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the tool queries live device state, returns cached values, or how it handles errors. This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and specifies the exact resource. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, an output schema exists, and the purpose is clearly stated), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. The tool is a straightforward read-only getter, and the description is complete for this context.

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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds no parameter semantics but also cannot be faulted for omitting anything relevant.

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 ('Read') and the specific resource ('whether AM, FM, FSK, and sweep modes are enabled'). It distinguishes from sibling setter tools like afg2125_set_am_enabled and afg2125_configure_am by focusing on reading the enabled state of multiple modes at once. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like afg2125_get_settings or the individual mode setters, nor does it state any prerequisites or contexts. The tool's purpose implies it is for checking mode status, but that is not explicitly stated.

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