get_modulation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add context about behavior. It does so by listing what settings are returned ('type, source, frequency, depth/deviation, and carrier parameters'), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions or missing safety information are apparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and then provides a concise list of returned content. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous language.

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 one-parameter getter with a provided readOnly annotation, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the resource, the channel parameter, and the categories of returned settings. No output schema exists, but the description gives an adequate high-level overview of the return value, which is all that is needed for this low-complexity tool.

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% (the 'channel' parameter is described as 'Channel to query'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'channel', so it earns the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Get') and resource ('modulation parameters of a channel'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also enumerates the exact settings returned (type, source, frequency, depth/deviation, carrier), which further distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_basic_wave or get_sweep.

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 clearly implies this tool is for reading modulation settings, and given the sibling list includes configure_modulation (the write counterpart), the use case is clear. It does not explicitly state 'when to use' or alternatives, but there are no alternative read tools for modulation, so the context is sufficient.

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