psu_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what the returned status contains, whether it affects the instrument, or any other side-effects, leaving the agent with limited insight beyond the name.

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?

A single, compact sentence that states the operation and adds just enough detail in parentheses. Every word earns its place; no redundancy 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 parameterless read-only query, the description is largely sufficient, especially because an output schema exists and the tool is simple. However, it does not place the tool within its sibling family or mention when it should be invoked, so a bit of context 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 clear resource ('system status register'), and it adds parenthetical detail ('channel modes, output states') that hints at its scope. This distinguishes it from related tools like psu_get_voltage or psu_get_output, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or draw a contrast.

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 on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as psu_get_output or psu_get_voltage. There is no mention of use context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the right situation.

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