get_channel_full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Read back' implies a safe, non-mutating operation and it names the specific extra fields returned (vernier, TCALibrate in s, label visibility), but it does not cover any permission, timing, or side-effect considerations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the differential detail follows. Efficient, though the reference to internal names adds little standalone value.

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 need no explanation, and the description adequately conveys what is read. However, the undocumented channel parameter leaves a genuine gap for a tool whose only input must be supplied correctly.

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% and the single parameter 'channel' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not clarify the accepted channel range, numbering scheme, or indexing, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('read back the complete configuration of an analog channel') and explicitly positions it against the sibling get_channel() by naming the extra fields it adds. An agent can distinguish this from get_channel without opening either schema.

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 'Adds ... queries to get_channel()' gives clear context that this is the fuller variant to use when the vernier, delay calibration, or label visibility fields are needed, implying get_channel() is the lighter alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule, but the routing context is clear.

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