agilentdsox2012a_get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read' is consistent and adds the specific status categories (acquisition, trigger, timebase, system-error). However, it does not disclose return format, potential side effects, or other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations already cover.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundant information. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is fully sufficient. It enumerates the status categories, and the output schema (present in context) presumably details the return structure. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is needed beyond what is provided.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information, and the empty schema is fully accurate for a parameterless status read tool.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resources: acquisition, trigger, timebase, and system-error status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_settings or measure, and the tool name aligns with the described function.

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 description implies usage for retrieving status information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_scpi or get_channel_settings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit via the tool's purpose.

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