afg2125_configure_arbitrary_waveform

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

The description adds the '20 MHz waveform-rate limit' constraint, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether existing waveforms are overwritten or how the instrument state changes, and annotations only indicate non-read-only behavior without further detail.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary actions. However, the ambiguous 'Upload/select' phrasing slightly reduces its efficiency, but overall it maintains brevity without unnecessary content.

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 combines multiple operations (upload/select and set frequency) and has sparse annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too brief. It lacks details on parameter semantics, return value behavior, what 'configure' entails, and why this tool exists alongside more granular sibling tools.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It indirectly references 'ARB data' (values) and 'set frequency' (frequency_hz), but does not explain the 'start' parameter, value formatting, units, or any constraints beyond the rate limit. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 states the tool uploads/selects ARB data and sets frequency, which identifies the resource and actions. However, 'Upload/select' is ambiguous, and sibling tools like afg2125_upload_arbitrary_waveform and afg2125_select_arbitrary_waveform already cover these individual actions, so the exact role of this combined tool is not clearly differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus calling the separate upload, select, and set-frequency tools. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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