list_visa_instruments

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the optional 'probe identity' behavior, which is useful context, but does not disclose potential latency or failure modes when probing instruments. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. No redundant content or 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?

With an output schema present, return values are already documented. The description covers the core functionality and the optional parameter, but leaves the scope of 'VISA resources' slightly ambiguous. Overall adequate for a simple discovery tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the lone parameter 'probe_identity' is not explained. The description's phrase 'optionally query each instrument identity' gives the parameter some meaning, but it does not clarify its default (true) or its impact on the output beyond implying a probe action.

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 tool lists VISA resources and optionally queries instrument identity, distinguishing it from siblings like list_supported_devices and identify_instrument. The verb 'List' and resource 'VISA resources' provide specific, actionable scope.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for resource discovery, but it does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools such as list_supported_devices or connect functions.

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