get_afg_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description properly carries the behavioral burden: it explicitly states 'Reading never changes it' and 'This is read-only', and even discloses the cost of about 9 queries per channel. This gives an agent critical safety and performance information that would otherwise be unknown.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavior for each parameter variant, then the read-only note and cost. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the inline field list and JSON example are compact and clear.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: it explains the return format for both invocation modes, defines the meaning of 'output', and discloses side-effect-free behavior and performance cost. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the description entirely compensates by explaining the optional 'channel' parameter's effect on the response format: flat fields for a single channel versus a 'channels' object keyed by channel number when omitted. This is far more meaningful than the bare schema, which only indicates the parameter may be an integer or null.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return the function generator settings', and pinpoints the distinguishing feature ('including whether the output is on'). It then details the exact shape of the returned data for both the channel-specific and all-channels cases, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly explains when to include the channel parameter versus omit it, including the resulting return structure for each case. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context for using its own optional parameter is fully covered.

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