read_digital_inputs

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, so the description adds value by clarifying the timing mode ('software-timed') and the single-sample limitation. This gives an agent a clear behavioral expectation beyond the safety annotation. No contradiction with 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 action and includes key specifics (software-timed, one sample, digital-input lines). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple read tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It does not detail line formats or error conditions, but the existence of sibling tools like list_physical_channels may provide additional context, and the scope is narrow enough to be 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that 'lines' are explicit digital-input lines, but 'device' is left to its name. It provides some meaning beyond the bare parameter names but not enough to fully clarify both parameters.

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 ('digital-input lines'), with modifiers that distinguish it from analog acquisition and recording tools. It explicitly states the function and scope, making it distinct from siblings like acquire_analog_voltage or record_analog_voltage.

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 when to use this tool (single software-timed sample from digital lines) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as continuous sampling or analog reads. Context with sibling tools is inferable but not directly stated.

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