get_option_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the firmware 00.01.00 hang bug, the opt-in gate that prevents any instrument I/O by default, the `skipped` return marker, and that install/uninstall commands exist but are deliberately withheld because they are licensed and destructive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical warning, so the important information is not buried. The line-wrapped enum block is slightly awkward and lengthens the text, but every sentence carries real information.

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 needed, and the description still covers the one non-obvious output behavior (`skipped`). Combined with the coverage of all three parameters and the safety caveats, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates every valid option_type value (BND, AFG100, AFG50, AUDio, CAN-FD, FLEX, AERO, RLU-05, etc.), explains opt_in's gating semantics, and explains how valid=True changes the underlying query.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (query) and resource (software-option installation status), and even names the underlying SCPI queries (:SYSTem:OPTion:STATus? / :SYSTem:OPTion:VALid?), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. No sibling tool covers option licensing status, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

It clearly states the conditions under which the tool is usable: opt_in=True is required or the call returns a `skipped` marker without touching the instrument, and valid=True switches the query form. It does not name alternative or adjacent sibling tools, but it is unambiguous about when this tool works versus when it silently no-ops.

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