afg2125_set_square_duty

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety or side-effect hints. The description adds only the vague phrase 'frequency-dependent manual limits,' which is ambiguous and does not disclose what happens on invalid input, whether limits are enforced, or how they are determined. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and includes one qualifier, but it is efficiently structured. Could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 setter tool, a minimal description is acceptable, but this one omits critical details: the allowed range for duty_percent, how frequency-dependent limits are handled, and any prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected, square wave must be active). The output schema may define return values, but it is not provided, so the description alone is insufficient.

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% for the single parameter 'duty_percent', so the description must compensate. It states the parameter sets a square-wave duty cycle, which is some meaning, but it fails to specify range (e.g., 0-100), units, or the nature of the frequency-dependent limits it mentions. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 sets a square-wave duty cycle, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('square-wave duty cycle'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like afg2125_set_ramp_symmetry or afg2125_set_function by naming the exact parameter and waveform type.

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 does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The phrase 'frequency-dependent manual limits' hints at constraints but does not explain how to apply them or when this tool is appropriate.

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