sdg1062x_set_waveform

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits beyond the annotations: output is disabled (so the configuration does not immediately apply to the physical output) and the tool performs SCPI read-back (verification). These add useful context about side effects and verification behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 behavioral qualifiers. Every word earns its place; no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given that the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It does mention output-disabled safety and read-back, which helps, but it lacks details on parameter semantics and when to use this vs. more advanced waveform configuration tools. The output schema likely covers return values, so no deduction there.

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%, meaning the parameter properties have no descriptions. The tool description merely says 'Configure a channel waveform' and does not explain what 'function', 'frequency_hz', 'offset_volts', 'amplitude_vpp' mean, their units, or how they map to the instrument. It fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 action (Configure) and resource (a channel waveform), and adds specific scope (with output disabled and SCPI read-back). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like sdg1062x_set_waveform_detail, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'with output disabled' implies this is a safe way to configure settings without affecting the actual output, and 'SCPI read-back' suggests it verifies after setting. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdg1062x_set_waveform_detail or sdg1062x_set_output, so usage guidance is only implied.

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