get_la_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read, but does not disclose authorization state, whether reading is side-effect free, whether the returned config reflects the current instrument state or a cached one. It does add the important side effect that passing digital_channel changes what is returned, but that is parameter behavior, not broader behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main resource read, followed by the conditional parameter effect. No filler; every clause carries information, including the manual reference.

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-value documentation is not required. For a parameterless-by-default read with a clear field list included in the description, most is covered. Gaps remain: no explicit note that the tool is a safe read, no mention of sibling configure_la, and no error behavior. Given no annotations and a 0% schema description, a 3 is appropriate.

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% for the single parameter 'digital_channel', so the description must compensate. It does explain the parameter's effect ('also reads that channel's on/off state and label') and gives the accepted range D0..D15, which is real added value. However, it does not specify the exact expected format (case, range enforcement), so it remains only partially compensating.

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 ('Read back') and resource ('logic analyzer configuration') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (enable, active channel, autosort, size, per-group display state, threshold). This is indistinguishable from the sibling get_channel/get_display because it explicitly names the LA config surface.

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?

There is no when-to-use/alternatives guidance. The description says the tool reads LA config, but a sibling configure_la exists and the description never mentions whether you should use this before/after configuring, or how it relates to configure_la. It also does not warn against calling with no argument vs with a channel. The one conditional ('With digital_channel...') is about parameter effect, not usage routing.

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