get_awg_full_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return semantics well (booleans for states, floats with units, enum short-forms like 'SQU'/'TRI', the arbitrary waveform path and AM/FM/PM modulation config), but says nothing about error behavior, invalid channels, or permissions for this read.

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 core action, then return-value detail. Two tight paragraphs with little waste, though the manual-section citation and enum examples add length without aiding invocation.

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 explaining return values is not strictly required, and the description does so anyway. However, it omits any channel-parameter meaning and sibling differentiation, leaving the invocation context incomplete for a 1-param tool.

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 coverage is 0% – the single 'channel' parameter has no description. The description never mentions the channel argument at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap by explaining valid ranges or which channel is targeted.

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+resource ('Read back every generator channel setting') and cites the manual section (3.25.1 - 3.25.25), making the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_awg_config, so the 'full' vs. standard read distinction is only implied.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never names the alternative get_awg_config or explains when to prefer this comprehensive read over the lighter one, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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