Power supply status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the supply cannot report its configured settings, the front panel may have changed them, and last_sent reflects values this tool previously sent rather than device truth. That caveat materially changes how an agent should interpret results. It stops short of stating failure modes or how stale last_sent can become.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no wasted words, and the measured values are front-loaded. However, it is a sentence fragment with no leading verb phrase, and the parenthetical caveats are packed mid-string rather than leading with the tool's action.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including which fields are readings versus cached settings. The notable gap is the undocumented max_wall timeout interaction with a blocking status read, which matters for a device that may be slow to respond.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single max_wall timeout parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds nothing about the call timeout or blocking behavior, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but is not additive.

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 is a bare list of field names ('vout_v, iout_a, pout_w, vin_v, temp_c, mode, output_on...') rather than a verb+resource statement; the reader infers 'report measured readings and state' from the field semantics and the title. It does separate itself from the write-oriented siblings (set, output, sequence_start), but it never explicitly frames the tool as a read of current state, leaving mild ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite siblings like watch, job_status, param_list, and ports that could plausibly overlap. The only implicit cue is that this reports measurements rather than settings, which an agent must deduce rather than being told.

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