describe_instrument

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It explicitly states 'Side effects: none', gives a concrete example of the return shape (automatable parameters or setup_requests), and describes edge cases including has_instrument: false. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or determinism, keeping it from a 5.

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 side effects, example, and edge cases in a compact, well-organized structure. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, example output, and edge cases. The main missing piece is guidance on where track_index comes from and how this relates to sibling inspection tools.

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 single parameter track_index is undocumented in the schema. The description's example uses track_index=60 but never explains the index's origin, range, or relation to other track-identifying tools, leaving a real gap.

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 states a clear verb ('describe') and resource (a track's instrument) and adds the distinguishing scope of what the user must still set up. It is not a tautology. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_track_state or get_device_list to differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example and edge-case notes imply when the tool is useful (checking whether an instrument exists or needs setup), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives for similar queries such as get_track_state.

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