read_analog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the meaningful behavioral trait that readings are 0-4095 counts mapping to 0-3.3 V, which tells the agent how to interpret results. It does not state that the operation is side-effect free or describe the response shape, leaving gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the range and voltage mapping as compact parenthetical detail. Nothing is redundant or 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input range and the units of the returned value, which is the most important missing piece. It still omits the response structure and error behavior for invalid channels, so it is adequate rather than 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed string type, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving the valid range "0-7", but it never clarifies the expected string encoding versus an integer or what happens with out-of-range values.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("channel 0-7 as an analog input") and even states the value encoding, so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like measure_current or board_status, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as measure_current or board_status, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only implicit usage cue is the channel range 0-7.

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