get_keyboard_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real semantics beyond the signature: the caveat that untested keys report false, and the return shape (parsed result map plus raw string). It does not address permissions or failure/error behavior, which is a minor gap for a read query.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the SCPI identity, the precondition, and the return value. The most decision-relevant constraint (must run key test first) is front-loaded after the identity clause.

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?

Covers what the tool is, the prerequisite to make results meaningful, key caveat, and return form. Because an output schema exists, the return value need not be detailed further, though the description's mention of the parsed map and raw string is a helpful bonus.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to document in the description. The description correctly focuses on preconditions and return semantics instead.

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) and resource (front-panel key/knob self-test results), and names the backing SCPI query (:SYSTem:KEYBoard:CHECk?), which pins down exactly what is retrieved. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling self_test by framing this as a results read that depends on a prior key test rather than as the test itself.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Only meaningful after running the key test on the instrument (Utility > Self Check > Key Test),' including the exact UI path that satisfies it. It lacks an explicit named alternative (e.g., 'use self_test to run the test first'), but the when/when-not context is clear.

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