read_bus_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden itself and does it well: it discloses that the full table goes to a CSV file while only a short preview and row count come back inline. That is exactly the kind of side-effect/return-shape disclosure an agent needs; it omits any note on cost, timing, or permissions for a hardware read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its SCPI form, then the output contract, then the prerequisite. No padding; only the parenthetical aside is slight filler.

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 detail is not strictly required, and the prerequisite is stated. However, with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no sibling routing, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently in a large tool set.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it only loosely maps: 'CSV file' gestures at save_csv, 'short preview' at preview_chars, and :BUS<n> hints at the required bus index. It never explains valid bus numbering, preview units, or what save_csv=false does, leaving real gaps for a 3-param tool.

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 and resource (read the decoding event table) and even names the underlying SCPI query (:BUS<n>:DATA?), which is unusually precise. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like export_bus_on_instrument or get_bus_config, but the CSV/preview behavior gives it a distinct footprint.

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 description gives one real prerequisite: the bus must be enabled and carry a decodable signal on its sources, which is useful gating context. It stops short of saying when to reach for this versus export_bus_on_instrument or configure_bus, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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