get_tracking_generator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing two distinct error conditions and how to interpret each. That pre-empts the two most likely failures an agent will hit. It does not describe return shape beyond the field list, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its full state list, then a second sentence for error semantics — no filler or repetition of the name. The error sentence is compressed to the point of being slightly terse ('an error naming the query otherwise'), costing a little readability.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned state fields and covers the two failure modes, which is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'instrument' parameter is fully documented there (including the default-instrument behavior). The description says nothing about the parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the tracking generator ... state') and then enumerates exactly which fields are returned: output on/off, output level in dBm, level offset, reference trace, normalization and its reference level. It even aliases the terminology ('the manual's trace source'), so an agent can map user wording to the tool. The read framing cleanly separates it from the sibling set_tracking_generator.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for the failure path: if a measurement is active the call errors and the agent should call exit_measurement, and an error naming the query implies the option is not installed. That is real conditional guidance rather than none. It stops short of stating a general 'use this before/after X' rule, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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