get_bus_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses which SCPI queries fire, that per-protocol keywords land under 'protocol_config' keyed by keyword (e.g. 'RS232:BAUD'), and that thresholds return {type: volts string}. It omits failure modes (invalid bus index, protocol mismatch) and any note on cost/latency of the full=True path.

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 one-line purpose, then organized into default-vs-optional-argument behavior and a short glossary for protocol/thresholds. Dense with SCPI jargon but nearly every clause carries information; the indented parameter notes are slightly redundant with the body.

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 shape needn't be fully re-specified, yet the description still names the notable keys. For a 4-parameter readback tool with no annotations, this is close to complete; only error/edge-case behavior 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: full, protocol and thresholds all get behavioral semantics beyond their names. The required 'bus' parameter is only indirectly explained via the ':BUS<n>:' notation, leaving valid-index range undocumented.

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 the decoding bus configuration') and immediately scopes it by listing the exact SCPI queries issued. It does not explicitly name the write-side counterpart (configure_bus) or read_bus_data, so sibling differentiation is left to inference, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 clear conditional guidance: default invocation returns only MODE?/DISPlay?/LABel?, while full=True / protocol= / thresholds= each unlock additional query groups. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_bus_data or raw scpi.

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