sdg1062x_get_settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating which settings are read, providing clarity on the tool's scope beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradictions exist between description and 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and efficiently lists all setting categories. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope well, and the output schema can elaborate on return values. However, it omits any explanation of the channel parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. Given the tool's simplicity and available annotations, it is acceptable but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'channel' parameter at all. The parameter name alone may hint at selecting an output channel, but without any description, default, or enums, the agent has to guess its meaning and valid values. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the resource (settings) along with the exact categories (output, waveform, modulation, sweep, burst, ARB, sync). This distinguishes it from sibling set tools like sdg1062x_set_waveform and other instruments' get_settings tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 current settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like query_scpi or set tools. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, though the read-only nature and name suggest usage is for inspection or pre-change review.

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