sdg1062x_select_arbitrary_waveform

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety profile. The description only says 'Select', but does not disclose side effects on the instrument, whether settings are changed, what happens with invalid inputs, or the 'safe' validation behavior. With no annotation support, the description fails to provide behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 effectively communicates the core action without wasted words. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing, though it omits necessary detail that would reduce the score further.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool involves selecting a waveform with multiple optional parameters and side effects on an instrument. The one-sentence description does not cover selection semantics, parameter interactions, error handling, or what happens to the instrument state. It is not complete enough for an agent to use without external knowledge.

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%, and the description gives only a vague mapping: 'built-in ARB index' to 'index' and 'safe user waveform name' to 'name'. It does not explain the required 'channel' parameter, how to choose between index and name, or what happens if both/neither are provided. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 'Select' and identifies the resource as 'built-in ARB index or one safe user waveform name', making clear this selects an arbitrary waveform on the instrument. It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_arbitrary_waveform' by implying an existing waveform selection, though it doesn't fully clarify what 'safe user waveform name' means.

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 when to use this tool: to select an arbitrary waveform by index or name, rather than upload or configure one. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternatives like set_waveform or upload_arbitrary_waveform, leaving the decision partially to the agent.

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