osc_get_channel_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Query' conveys a read-only operation, and 'full channel setup info' suggests it returns a comprehensive snapshot, but it does not mention error behavior, invalid channel handling, or whether the channel must be enabled.

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 very short and front-loaded with the operation and resource. The Args section is minimal and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values. It captures the core behavior and the only argument's valid range; the main gap is the lack of any usage-boundary context, but that is minor given the low complexity.

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 schema only says the parameter is an integer, while the description adds the key constraint that channel must be 1 or 2. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not explain the semantic difference between channels.

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 states a clear verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('full channel setup info'), and the target instrument ('oscilloscope'). It is immediately distinguishable from setters and other getters, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to rule out confusion.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as osc_get_timebase or the channel configuration setters. There are also no prerequisites or conditions stated beyond the basic channel argument.

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