afg2125_identify

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

The description adds the prerequisite that the device must be 'connected', which is a useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not describe error behavior, return format, or VISA resource details, but the output schema covers return structure, and the operation is a simple read with annotations already declaring safety. This adds some but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and condition. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and contains no unnecessary words or details.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple identity retrieval tool. It specifies the device type and precondition (connection), making it complete for this low-complexity operation.

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 input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description clarifies the target device ('connected AFG-2125'), which is the only semantic needed. A score of 4 aligns with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 (Return), the resource (the connected AFG-2125 identity and VISA resource), and is specific to the AFG-2125 instrument. This distinguishes it from sibling identify tools such as m8811_identify or identify_instrument.

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 phrase 'connected AFG-2125' implies the tool should be used after establishing a connection, and the AFG-2125 prefix differentiates it from generic identify_instrument. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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