psu_get_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and the word 'Query' plus returning on/off implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not discuss error behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the return format.

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: one clear functional sentence followed by a single parameter explanation. No redundant wording or filler.

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 read-only query, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and the only input that matters. The output schema covers the return value, so nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 gives only 'integer' with no enum or description, while the description supplies the essential constraint that channel must be 1, 2, or 3. This directly prevents invalid calls.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('power supply channel output'), and says exactly what is being determined: whether the output is on or off. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling psu_set_output, which changes the output state.

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 makes clear the context: use this when you need to know the current on/off state of a power supply channel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the query-vs-set distinction is evident from sibling tool names.

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