sdg1062x_get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' verb aligns with this. It adds useful context by enumerating the specific capability categories (channels, bandwidth, ARB, interface), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It identifies the key output aspects and differentiates from get_settings. A slightly higher score would require explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools, which is handled under usage guidelines.

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 schema provides complete coverage (100%). The description compensates nothing needed for parameters, but its enumeration of the returned capability domains adds semantic meaning to the tool's purpose. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('model-specific channels, bandwidth, ARB, and interface capabilities'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sdg1062x_get_settings and agilent33500b_get_capabilities. It immediately conveys the tool's function and 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?

The description implies the tool is used to retrieve capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_settings or get_capabilities for other models. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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