get_smb_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It names the underlying SCPI query (:SAVe:SMB:CONState?) and, crucially, explains the return encoding (connected=True when 1), which the agent needs to interpret the value. Auth/permission requirements are not covered, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the value-mapping detail appended. No waste, though it is terse rather than richly structured.

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-format explanation is unnecessary; the description still adds the boolean encoding semantics that the schema likely does not. For a zero-parameter status getter this is nearly complete, with only usage context left implicit.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to add and the description appropriately focuses on the returned state 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 (SMB share connection state), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling get_smb_config (configuration) and smb_connect/disconnect (actions). Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate 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?

Usage is implied by the status-query nature, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as get_smb_config. An agent can infer its role but receives no routing help.

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