get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds value by stating the tool will not reset, clear errors, or change generator settings, and that it connects lazily and enumerates exactly what full=True inspects. It stops short of describing return format or latency/connection-reuse behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the full=True delta, then the non-side-effects guarantee — a logical order. The long enumeration of checks is dense but each item distinguishes the mode, so it largely earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description at least hints at the return ('diagnostic notes'), and it fully covers the single parameter and safety profile. A bit more on what the diagnostic output looks like would make it complete for an agent consuming the result.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'full' is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does, spelling out that full=True adds I/Q source, modulation paths, ALC, high-crest, clocks, trigger, offsets, and blanking checks. Only the default/true-false semantics are left to the schema's default field.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads instrument identity, installed options, and live settings from an E4433B generator, with a stated expanded mode via full=True. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like read_errors by noting it does not clear errors, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Connect lazily' and 'full=True also checks...' tell the agent how to vary depth, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance (e.g., versus scpi_query or read_errors). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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