get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Snapshot' implies a non-mutating read, which is useful, but it never states read-only safety, cost/latency, whether the instrument must be in a particular run state, or whether it blocks. Since an output schema exists, the enumerated contents are already structured data rather than added 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the aggregate framing leads. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant against the output schema, which keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 no-argument status tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to know what you get back and that it is a broad read. Minor gaps are the absence of any note on read-only behavior or when to choose it over narrower siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-argument tool is 4.

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 names a specific resource (instrument status snapshot) and enumerates the exact facets it aggregates: identity, run state, trigger status, sample rate, memory depth, acquisition settings, channels, LAN, errors. It tells the agent this is an aggregate rather than a single-field getter. It stops short of distinguishing itself from overlapping siblings like get_idn, get_errors, get_trigger_status and get_system_info.

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?

The phrase 'one-stop instrument snapshot' implies this is the tool to reach for when a broad overview is wanted instead of many targeted getters, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_idn/get_errors/get_trigger_status. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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