agilent33500b_set_output

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only, and the description adds important behavioral nuance: enabling carries a safety prerequisite, while disabling is 'free.' This goes beyond the structured annotation fields and helps the agent understand the risk profile.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key safety qualifier.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and safety. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit parameter mapping for 'confirm_enable', but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for the 'enabled' parameter (disable vs. enable semantics) and hints at the 'confirm_enable' parameter through 'explicit cabling and load confirmation.' However, it does not explicitly map that phrase to the confirm_enable parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Disable'/'enable') and resource ('output' implicitly for the Agilent 33500B), with a clear scope and a distinctive safety condition. It distinguishes from sibling set_output tools by highlighting the load-confirmation requirement for enabling.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: disabling is always acceptable, while enabling requires explicit cabling and load confirmation. It does not name alternatives but provides strong contextual guidance for this specific device and operation.

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