dut_get_setups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Get' conveys a read-only listing action, but there is no explicit statement about return format, ordering, or whether only direct children are returned. It is serviceable for a simple getter but not rich.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action and object are front-loaded. It loses a point because it omits useful parameter/path detail, not because it is wordy.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description gives the core operation but leaves out path format and return-shape details, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is adequate for an agent that already understands the domain, but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must explain the dut_path parameter. It only says 'under a DUT', which identifies the parameter's role but not how the path should be formatted or what a valid DUT path looks like. The only required parameter remains under-specified.

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 (Get), resource (Setup names), and scope (under a DUT). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_get_info or setup_create, which operate on individual setups rather than listing their names.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need the names of Setups under a DUT. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to related alternatives like object_child_names_of_type or setup_get_info.

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