list_physical_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about 'allowed' channels and per-device scoping, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid device inputs or what happens when no channels match.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'list', and contains no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and the optional filter.

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?

An output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the operation, scoping to one device, and the channel type filter, though it could mention prerequisite steps like confirming the device exists or is accessible.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description partially compensates by mapping 'analog-input and/or digital-input' to channel_type and 'one device' to device. However, it does not explicitly state that channel_type is optional or that omitting it returns both types.

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 'list' and resource 'physical channels' for 'one device', and mentions the optional filter types ('analog-input and/or digital-input'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_devices and get_device_details, which serve different purposes.

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 by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites. For instance, it does not suggest first calling list_devices to obtain a device ID, nor does it exclude use when the device is not connected.

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