get_sweep

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the sweep parameters returned, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not elaborate on possible error conditions, exact return format, or any other behavioral details beyond the field list, so it is adequate but not exceptional.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the sweep parameters of a channel') and then lists the specific parameters. It contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that there is only one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a good overview of what will be returned by enumerating the sweep parameter fields. It could be more explicit about the return structure or units, but for a straightforward read-only getter, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes the single 'channel' parameter with an enum and a clear description ('Channel to query'), so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sweep parameters of a channel'), and enumerates the major fields included (state, frequencies, mode, direction, trigger source, etc.). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like configure_sweep (set) and other get_* tools (which target different resources).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as configuring sweep with configure_sweep. The usage is implied by the 'get' verb and the presence of a corresponding configure tool, but no explicit comparison or exclusion is provided. This falls under implied usage, which aligns with a score of 3.

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