read_counter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what the tool returns and how totalize changes behavior, but it never states that this is a safe read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or polling/rate considerations.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's scope in a short header sentence, then the returned fields, then the parameter effect. The raw SCPI command adds precision with minimal waste; no filler text.

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 values need not be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates the key returned fields. For a single-parameter read tool this is sufficient, though the absence of any when-to-use contrast leaves a minor gap.

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 must compensate, and it does: it explains that totalize=True additionally reads the counter statistics switch and cites the underlying SCPI query. Default value and type are left to the schema, but the semantic effect of the flag is fully conveyed.

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_counter' → reads hardware frequency counter state) and enumerates exactly what it returns (value, enable, source, mode, resolution). It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling write tool set_counter or set_measure_counter, so it is clear but lacks 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite set_counter/set_measure_counter/read_dvm existing in the sibling set. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the returned fields.

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