Instrument Open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this opens a backend and returns device plus capabilities, but it does not mention that opening may create a persistent stateful resource, whether it replaces an existing session, or that it should be paired with instrument_close. For an open operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, includes useful examples, and states the return value. Every part is relevant and there is no 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the command is invocable with the required backend parameter thanks to the examples. Still, with zero schema coverage on extra and device_id and no lifecycle guidance, the description is only minimally complete for an agent that needs to use the full parameter set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only compensates for the backend parameter by listing examples. It provides no meaning for extra or device_id, such as how device_id selects a device or what extra can configure, so two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 ('Open') and resource ('live backend'), gives concrete backend examples (mock, dslogic, sigrok_cli), and states the return value ('device + capabilities'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like instrument_scan or instrument_capabilities.

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 provides clear context for the operation, so an agent can infer it is for opening a live backend. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to figure out the boundary against siblings like instrument_list and instrument_scan.

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