Instrument Capabilities

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 only lists the information returned and does not state that the tool is a read-only query with no side effects, nor does it mention any requirements like an open instrument. An agent cannot infer safety or mutation behavior from this description alone.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the key content immediately and is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the description covers the content of the response. However, it does not mention what happens if no instrument is open or whether the operation fails under certain conditions. For a simple zero-parameter query, this is nearly complete but leaves a small 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds value by specifying what the returned data covers (sample rates, channels, trigger), but parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides sample rates, channel names, and trigger support for the open instrument. It specifies a distinct resource ('the open instrument') and the kind of information returned, which differentiates it from siblings like instrument_list (which lists instruments) or instrument_scan (which scans for instruments).

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 the tool is used after opening an instrument ('for the open instrument'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when no instrument is open) or which sibling to use instead for other needs.

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