list_oscilloscope_channels

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavioral context: results are paginated, come from the device's online catalog, do not depend on a project file, and do not trigger acquisition. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read-only catalog listing this is solid.

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 single dense passage is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler; each clause (pagination, search scope, no project dependency, no acquisition) carries information. It could be tightened by separating the identity-verification clause from the listing purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a six-parameter tool with a transport enum and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent without enough guidance to choose port/transport/limit/offset correctly. It is adequate at the conceptual level but thin on operational completeness.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely fails. The search by name/function code and P00–P15 filtering hint at how 'query'/'group' behave, but 'port', 'transport' (serial vs selected_tcp), 'limit', and 'offset' are never explained, leaving four of six parameters semantically opaque.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: paginated listing of acquirable 16-bit P channels from the device's online catalog, with name/function-code search or P00–P15 filtering. It is distinguishable from the sibling capture_oscilloscope because it explicitly says it does not start acquisition, though the opening clause about 'verifying device identity/parameter version' slightly muddies the core purpose.

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 context is implied: it is a pre-acquisition listing step ('verify real-time attributes before acquisition') and it does not depend on AN380.bnproj. However, it never names the alternative (capture_oscilloscope) or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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