get_cursor_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only ('Read'), defines output semantics (AX_s, BX_s as time, inv_delta_x as frequency), and adds a concurrency warning. It doesn't specify return format or error behavior, but the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by field definitions and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main returned fields and includes the concurrency warning. It could mention what happens if cursors are not set or return an error, but for a simple read tool, it is reasonably complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the returned fields, aiding interpretation of the tool's output, which is appropriate given no output schema.

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 tool reads current cursor mode and all cursor readouts, with specific output fields defined. It distinguishes from sibling set_cursors and measure tools by focusing on reading rather than setting or measuring.

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 when cursor values are needed and explicitly warns against concurrent calls with any other rigol tool, which is a critical usage constraint. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the read-only nature is clear from context.

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