agilent33500b_configure_modulation

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

The phrase 'with model capability checks' hints at a preflight validation, but the description does not disclose behavior for unsupported models, whether existing settings are overwritten, or the effect on device state. Annotations are all false and carry no informative value, so the burden falls on the description, which fails to provide adequate transparency.

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 filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 six parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, this description is incomplete. It lacks units, allowed values for source and internal_function, the role of 'enabled', and how parameters interact. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 description adds meaning only to the 'mode' parameter by listing valid values (AM, FM, PM, PWM, FSK, BPSK, SUM). The other five parameters (amount, source, enabled, internal_function, internal_frequency_hz) remain undocumented. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description heavily under-delivers on parameter explanation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Configure') and explicitly lists the supported modulation types (AM, FM, PM, PWM, FSK, BPSK, SUM). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_waveform and set_mode_enabled by targeting modulation configuration.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agilent33500b_set_mode_enabled or configure_sweep. It implies usage for configuring modulation but lacks explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context.

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