discover_instruments

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by explaining the discovery mechanism (portmapper broadcast on each local IPv4 interface), the identification step (*IDN?), a disclosure that serial numbers are suppressed, and that results report both VXI-11 and raw port 5025 reachability.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism and return fields are packed efficiently. The parenthetical '(read-only ...)' mildly restates the annotation, and the density makes it slightly harder to scan, keeping it short of a 5.

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 zero-required-parameter, single-optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (host, model, firmware, VXI-11 and port 5025 status) and what does not (serial number). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 single timeout_ms parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default of 1500 ms, so the description carries no additional burden and mentions no parameter details itself. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Names a specific verb (Find/identify) and a specific resource (UNI-T / VXI-11 spectrum analyzers on the local network), and the 'without knowing their IP address' clause immediately distinguishes it from listing already-known/connected instruments.

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 scenario is explicit: use this when IP addresses are unknown, via broadcast discovery. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. list_instruments) for the case where instruments are already known, so the when-not half of the guidance is left implicit.

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