m8811_identify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing that the hardware serial number is redacted, which is a behavior not captured by annotations. This adds value beyond structured data.

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 is front-loaded with the action ('Return') and resource, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the essential 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 there are no parameters, annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the key output detail (redacted serial number) and the scope (M8811 identity), making it complete for this simple 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters; it correctly focuses on the output behavior. No additional parameter explanation is required.

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 returns M8811 identity fields, with a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('M8811 identity fields'), and a distinctive behavior (redacting the hardware serial number). This distinguishes it from other instrument-identify siblings like 'agilentdsox2012a_identify'.

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 this tool is for retrieving M8811 identity information, and the redaction detail gives a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the M8811 scoping is clear enough among sibling identify tools.

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