get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a significant performance characteristic: 'a full read is about 39 queries and can take several seconds,' which is beyond what annotations would provide. It also clarifies the effect of the sections parameter on the response. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects or return format, but for a read-only getter, the disclosure 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 description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and performance tradeoff. The only gap is a lack of explicit return value structure, but the tool is a simple getter and the description states it returns the requested sections, which is sufficient for invocation.

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 provides only a name and type for 'sections' with no description, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that narrowing with sections is faster and that omitting returns every section, giving the parameter semantic meaning. It also lists the possible section names in parentheses (channels / timebase / trigger / acquisition), which helps an agent know what values to pass.

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 'Get the main settings (channels / timebase / trigger / acquisition) in one call,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_channel, get_timebase, get_trigger, and get_acquisition_state by emphasizing it retrieves multiple sections in a single call.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the sections parameter: 'When you know what you need, narrowing with sections is much faster' and explains the tradeoff with a full read. It also states 'Omitting sections returns every section,' providing clear behavioral expectations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool versus narrower getters.

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