read_dvm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the one critical behavioral fact: the underlying ':DVM:CURRent?' query hangs on the instrument when the DVM is disabled. That hazard is exactly what an agent needs to avoid a stalled connection. It does not cover return units, resolution, or timeout behavior, 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?

Two dense sentences with the purpose first and the hazard second; nothing is padded. The second sentence's phrasing ('the reading is only requested when the DVM is on') is slightly circuitous but still short.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema covering the return value, the description only needs to convey purpose and preconditions, which it does, including the DVM-enabled requirement. It stops short of saying how to enable the DVM or what happens if the option is absent.

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 to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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?

Names a specific resource and measurement: reads the digital multimeter current value when the DVM option is installed. An agent can tell it is a read operation on the DVM subsystem, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_counter or measure_item.

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 precondition 'the reading is only requested when the DVM is on' implies the DVM must be enabled (presumably via set_dvm), which is useful. However, it never names the enabling tool or states when to prefer this over other measurement tools, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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