read_digital

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

The description discloses the return format ({channel, value}), which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover error behavior, whether the line must be configured as input, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and offers only basic information.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, the second provides parameter format and return value. No wasted 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 low complexity (single parameter, output schema existing), the description covers the channel format and return value well. It lacks details on invalid channels or configuration requirements, but these are not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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 schema only says 'channel' is a required string (0% coverage), but the description adds an example format ('Dev1/port0/line0'), providing meaning beyond the bare schema. This compensates for missing schema descriptions, though it could be more exhaustive.

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 'Read the current logic level of a digital input line,' which is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from siblings like read_analog and write_digital.

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 channel format ('Dev1/port0/line0') provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using read_analog for analog signals.

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