psu_get_current

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Query' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, unit handling, or error/return characteristics beyond what an output schema may provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the argument documentation is minimal. Every part earns its place, and there is no extraneous repetition of schema information.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is complete: it defines what is queried, the channel parameter range, and the operation's intent. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details that the description does not need to restate.

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 declares 'channel' as an integer with no range or defaults, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by stating the allowed values: 1, 2, or 3. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs.

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 a specific resource ('set current limit on a power supply channel'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like psu_measure_current (measured current) and psu_set_current (setting the limit).

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 described purpose is clear enough to imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from psu_measure_current. The phrase 'set current limit' provides context, but no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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