discover_my_instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool identifies and recommends but does not disclose if it is read-only, requires a connection, or has any side effects. The behavioral traits are insufficiently described.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place without any fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for a basic understanding. However, it could be more complete by elaborating on the alias parameter and the expected output format.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'alias' parameter at all. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter semantics, which is a critical 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 clearly states the tool identifies the instrument model and recommends available commands, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that are SCPI-specific commands.

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 explicitly mentions the use case: after connection, to confirm the model and view recommended commands. This provides clear context, though it could be improved by stating when not to use it or mentioning alternatives.

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