agilentdsox2012a_acquire_waveform

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'ASCII transfer' as a detail, but does not disclose side effects, whether it triggers a new acquisition, or any prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral information is minimal.

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, tightly worded sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource while also conveying the transfer method. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though additional detail could be added 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?

There is an output schema, so return values do not need to be described in the text. The description states the primary outcome (acquiring scaled waveform points) and the transfer method, but it lacks guidance on parameter usage, when to use it versus alternatives, and any behavioral caveats. For a two-parameter tool, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that the channel parameter accepts CH1 or CH2, but gives no detail about 'max_points'—its purpose, range, or effect. The parameter names and defaults provide some clues, but the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 ('Acquire') with a clear resource ('scaled waveform points'), scope ('CH1 or CH2'), and method ('using ASCII transfer'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as 'measure', 'query_scpi', or other device-specific acquire functions.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose but not explicitly stated. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'agilentdsox2012a_measure' or 'agilentdsox2012a_query_scpi', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring a connection.

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