psu_measure_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool measures actual current, but does not mention whether the output must be enabled, whether it triggers a new measurement or returns the last reading, or what units are returned. This is a significant gap for a measurement operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, 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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return format need not be described), the description covers the essential facts: what the tool measures and the only parameter's valid values. It lacks explicit usage context vs. alternatives, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema keep this from being a major gap.

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 defines 'channel' as an integer with no description, while the tool description adds concrete valid values: 'Channel number (1, 2, or 3).' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the agent the essential constraint needed to call the tool correctly.

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 specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('actual output current on a power supply channel'), making the tool's operation clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like psu_set_current and psu_get_current by emphasizing 'actual' output, which implies a measured value rather than a setpoint.

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 implies usage by saying 'Measure the actual output current,' which suggests using this when a live measurement is needed rather than a setpoint query (psu_get_current). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance remains indirect.

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