m8811_diagnose_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'without probing them' indicates no instrument interaction. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying the non-invasive nature of the operation.

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 focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple diagnostic tool with no parameters, safe annotations, and an output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does. It specifically names the relevant hardware (CH340/CH341) and the mapping target (VISA ASRL), making the context complete.

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 document beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter complexity requiring additional description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Match' with clear resources ('connected CH340/CH341 ports' to 'VISA ASRL resources'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like list_visa_instruments by specifying a targeted mapping without probing.

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 'without probing them' implies a safe diagnostic context, giving some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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