get_pt5_channels

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'based on its captureDataMask' and listing additional info (hardware info, sample rate), but does not cover file access requirements, potential side effects, or performance considerations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It is concise with no redundant words.

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 the simple input (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (channels, hardware info, sample rate). It does not detail output format, but this is acceptable for a straightforward list tool.

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 only parameter is file_path, which is described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the .pt5 file'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'available measurement channels in a PT5 file', and specifies the channel types (Main, USB, Aux) along with additional outputs (hardware info, sample rate). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pt5_samples or get_pt5_header.

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 for listing channels based on captureDataMask but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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