arb_get_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only intention via 'Query', and specifies that the result is an on/off state, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid channel handling or communication errors.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. The core capability is stated first, followed by the parameter clarification, and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter query tool with an output schema available, this description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It gives the purpose, the exact valid channel values, and the expected query outcome; return value details are already covered by the output schema.

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 only provides 'channel' as an integer with title 'Channel' and no description. The tool description adds the valuable constraint 'Channel number (1 or 2)', which directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('waveform generator channel output'), and clearly states the result being determined ('on or off'). This distinguishes it from setter tools like arb_set_output and from getters on other instrument types like psu_get_output.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention paired setter tools such as arb_set_output, nor any conditions or prerequisites for checking output state.

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