get_identification

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

The description discloses the SCPI command, adding context beyond the name. However, with no annotations, it does not mention any behavioral aspects like idempotency, speed, or lack of side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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-loading the purpose with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and earned.

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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It states the return value is a string (the identification string), which is complete for this simple query.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline of 4 applies as there is nothing to explain.

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 clearly states the tool returns the instrument identification string with the specific SCPI command `*IDN?`. The verb 'Return' and resource 'instrument identification string' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_state, get_status, etc., 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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the tool's purpose is self-evident as a standard query for instrument identity. The context of sibling tools implies it should be used after connection, but no exclusions are provided. This is a minor gap for a straightforward tool.

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