Configure VISA session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the precondition (already-open instrument), but says nothing about whether changes persist, whether they affect concurrent sessions, required permissions, or failure modes for a mutation operation.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key constraint front-loaded. It is well-sized, though the extreme brevity is what leaves the parameter and behavioral gaps.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema coverage, the description documents only 2 of 5 parameters and omits any behavioral context an agent would need.

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% across 5 parameters, so the schema provides no guidance. The description only names timeout and terminators, leaving 'resource' and 'baud_rate' completely unexplained in both the schema and description.

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 ('Change') and resource ('timeout and terminators') scoped to a VISA session on an already-open instrument. It's distinguishable from open_instrument and scope_configure, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 phrase 'on an already-open instrument' implies the prerequisite that a session must exist, which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over scope_configure or re-opening the instrument.

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