get_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that omitting the channel reads both channels, but says nothing about response shape, units, or error behavior for an out-of-range channel.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the parameter rule second. Nothing to trim.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation detail about the returned data, so the description is the only source of what "state" means. It names mode, phase and channel settings, which is minimally sufficient, but omits return format, units and value ranges that an instrument-control agent would likely need.

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 single channel parameter has only an enum of 1/2 with default null, so the description must carry the semantics. It does explain the meaningful distinction (present = one channel, omitted = both), which is exactly the ambiguity the schema leaves open, though it never names which channel values are valid.

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 ("Read") plus a concrete resource set (mode, phase and channel settings), which separates it from siblings like get_calibration, get_manual and get_device_info. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is narrow enough that an agent can place it.

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?

"Omit channel to read both" is a genuine usage instruction for the optional parameter, implying the tool can be called with no argument to read all channels. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_calibration or the get_* siblings, and no stated prerequisites or ordering constraints.

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