get_math_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. 'Read back' usefully discloses a non-mutating read operation, but it adds no detail about side effects, permissions, or scope; for a simple getter that is minimal but adequate, not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise and easy to scan, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than over-explanation.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and a sibling get_math_config_full, the description leaves the agent without enough context to choose or invoke this tool confidently.

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 single index parameter is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'a math channel' hints that index selects a channel, but it does not explain valid values, the default of 1, or its meaning. This is insufficient compensation 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 read operation and resource: reading back a math channel's configuration. It distinguishes get from configure, but does not differentiate itself from sibling get_math_config_full, so it is clear without 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions for selecting this getter over get_math_config_full or get_math_waveform. Use is only implicitly inferable from 'Read back'.

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