identify

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (manufacturer, model, serial, firmware) and the SCPI command, providing context beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 includes essential details (SCPI command and return data). Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, even among many siblings.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema matches no-parameter invocation). Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate, as there is nothing additional to explain about parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a query for waveform generator identification using the *IDN? command, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_output or configure_output. It also lists the specific data returned (manufacturer, model, serial, firmware), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by stating it queries identification, which is clearly the tool for retrieving device identity. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, no sibling tool serves this purpose, so the context is clear and no additional guidance is necessary.

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