afg2125_select_arbitrary_waveform

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it selects the waveform without enabling the front-panel output. Given that annotations provide no safety hints (all false), this added detail is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites (e.g., whether a waveform must already be uploaded), so it is not fully transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the action and its key caveat. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter tool, the description covers the essential action and the important behavioral nuance (not enabling output). However, it leaves implicit that a waveform must already be loaded into volatile ARB memory, and does not mention what happens if none is present. This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no confusion or missing information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Select') and a clear resource ('the waveform in volatile ARB memory'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from output-enabling actions by stating it does so 'without enabling the front-panel output'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'afg2125_set_output' or 'afg2125_upload_arbitrary_waveform'.

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 provides clear context: this is for selecting an already-uploaded waveform in volatile memory, and it explicitly notes that it does not enable the output. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough that the intended use case is evident.

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