dpo2012b_get_status

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 covered. The description adds value by specifying which status categories are read (acquisition, trigger, horizontal, error), giving more detail than the tool name alone. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as return format or whether a connection is required, though the output schema may cover return format.

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 of 8 words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and immediately specifies the resource and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover read-only safety, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what statuses are retrieved. However, it lacks usage guidance or context about when to choose this over sibling tools, which is a minor gap for contextual completeness.

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 does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema already indicates no arguments are required. The description's mention of status categories provides useful context about what the tool reports, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing more to add.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('status'), and adds specific scope by enumerating the status categories: acquisition, trigger, horizontal, and error. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dpo2012b_get_channel_settings, which target different data. The verb+resource+scope structure matches the highest standard.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dpo2012b_measure or dpo2012b_acquire_waveform. There are no explicit mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. While the purpose is clear, the lack of any usage context means the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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