get_burst

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Get'. The description adds value by listing the specific attributes returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's output scope. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context goes beyond the minimal read-only hint, though it stops short of providing return format details.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get the burst wave parameters of a channel') and then lists the included parameters without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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-only query tool with one fully documented parameter, the description adequately covers purpose and return content. No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does by listing them. It lacks explicit return format or error conditions, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 covers the single 'channel' parameter completely with type, enum (C1/C2), and description 'Channel to query'. The description's phrase 'of a channel' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a get operation for 'burst wave parameters of a channel' and enumerates the exact parameters covered (state, period, trigger source, burst mode, cycle count, carrier settings, delay). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_basic_wave or get_modulation, and from configure_burst which is the write counterpart.

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 for querying burst settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus configure_burst or other get_* tools. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for use, so it earns an average score for implied but not explicit guidance.

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