m8811_set_panel_control

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds specific behavioral context by explaining what the mode switch does. However, it does not disclose effects like potential disconnection or the need for confirmation, which could be relevant given the confirm_remote parameter.

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 front-loads the core action. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.

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 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too brief to be fully complete. It omits the purpose of 'confirm_remote' and does not clarify the implications of the mode switch (e.g., whether the instrument disconnects). The output schema exists but the behavioral context is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. The 'remote' parameter is partially explained through 'guarded PC/front-panel lock mode' vs 'local panel control', but 'confirm_remote' is not mentioned at all. This is an incomplete compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: entering guarded PC/front-panel lock mode or returning to local panel control. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., m8811_set_voltage, m8811_set_current) by focusing on panel lock mode.

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 context by describing the two states (remote and local), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke, but lacks explicit guidance.

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