afg2125_upload_arbitrary_waveform

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

The description discloses that the operation does not select the waveform or enable output, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations (which are all false and unhelpful). However, it does not mention whether the upload overwrites existing data or any side effects, leaving some 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key constraints without wasting words. It is an excellent example of concise, high-density information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no description. However, the unexplained 'start' parameter and the lack of details about overwriting behavior or prerequisites make it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'values' parameter range (-511..511) and count (2-4096), but the 'start' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap in understanding required arguments.

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 uploads arbitrary waveform points with specific constraints (2-4096 points, range -511..511). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like select_arbitrary_waveform by explicitly noting it does not select or enable output.

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 implies usage context: uploading waveform data without activating it, which differentiates it from select/configure operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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