get_lan_config

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: 'Read' establishes a non-mutating operation, the return contents are spelled out, and the link status value set (UNLINK, CONNECTED, INIT, IPCONFLICT, BUSY, CONFIGURED, DHCPFAILED, INVALIDIP, IPLOSE) tells the agent what states to expect. It omits any permission/auth or connection-requirement context, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

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 purpose, then return fields, then the parameter and its enum — a logical order with no filler sentences. The return-field inventory is long but each item is informative; it becomes partly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

For a one-optional-param read tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, parameter values, and expected link-status states, so an agent can call it correctly. The missing piece is usage guidance relative to set_lan and other get_* siblings, which would make it fully self-contained.

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% and the lone parameter's schema entry is just a nullable string, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving the allowed values (USB|LXI|SOCKet), the meaning (address type for :LAN:VISA?), and the default (LXI). The only nit is that the schema declares default null while the description says default LXI, a mild ambiguity rather than a real conflict.

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 the full LAN configuration') and enumerates exactly what is returned (IP, subnet, gateway, DNS, DHCP, MAC, mode switches, hostname, link status, VISA resource string). This clearly separates it from write-side siblings like set_lan, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance, no mention of set_lan as the counterpart write tool, and no conditions or prerequisites for calling this versus get_system_config or get_idn. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and return field list.

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