get_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds value by listing the specific fields returned, but does not detail return format, error behavior, or other behavioral aspects. This aligns with a baseline of 3 for tools with annotations and partial added 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no wasted words. It conveys the necessary information efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies what is returned and the scope (channel). The annotations cover the read-only nature, and the schema covers parameter details, so no further information is needed.

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 input schema has a 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'channel', with a clear description and enum values. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('output state of a channel'), and the specific attributes returned (on/off status, load impedance, polarity). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like configure_output, which would set these values.

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 this tool is for reading the current output state of a channel, which is clear given the name and the sibling tool 'configure_output' for writing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of other getters or mention exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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