Read-only meter query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add real behavior beyond that: the UNSAFE_OPERATION refusal happens before the command reaches the meter, and binary replies come back as hex. It does not discuss per-command failure modes or what a partial multi-command failure looks like, so it adds useful but not complete context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and result, then the whitelist, then the refusal rule. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the parenthetical command examples are slightly list-heavy but functional.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of explaining responses (text, or hex for binary). Combined with the schema's timeout semantics, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only multi-command failure ordering is unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it defines which command strings are legal and shows the QMP <property> sub-syntax, well past the schema's bare example ['ID', 'QM']. Timing semantics for max_wall are already in the schema and are not repeated unnecessarily.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'send read-only remote commands to the meter and return each answer'. It enumerates the accepted command vocabulary (ID, IM, Q*, QMP <property>), which lets an agent distinguish this from siblings like press or memory without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scope via the command whitelist and states the exclusion case: anything else (PRESS, MP, CSD, RI, OFF) is refused. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tool (press) an agent should call instead for those operations, leaving that routing to inference.

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