self_config

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mock instrument and the transport cascade, but omits details about error handling, idempotency, or whether the operation is blocking. The description does not contradict annotations (none provided), but is insufficient for full transparency.

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?

The description is concise at three sentences, with no redundant information. The first sentence captures the primary action, the second adds technical detail, and the third contextualizes the mock behavior. It could benefit from slight restructuring to prioritize key usage guidelines, but overall is efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, minimal parameters), the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must exist), return value (if any), and error scenarios. This incomplete context may hinder an agent's decision-making.

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 input schema defines two parameters (args, kwargs) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. This leaves an agent unable to correctly populate these parameters, severely limiting tool usability.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover/connect an instrument and attach it to the session.' It also explains the transport cascade and mock behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like identify or acq_configure.

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 implies this tool is for initial connection, especially in a simulated environment ('In Part 1 the backend factory yields a MockInstrument...'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, such as whether it must be called before other operations or what happens if already connected.

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