sdg1062x_set_waveform_detail

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'with read-back' which hints at a return value, but it does not explain whether unspecified parameters are reset or preserved, whether validation occurs, or what the read-back contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with many optional parameters.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Set') and enumerates the key parameters. Every word contributes, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 the complexity of 8 parameters and no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It does not address how the multiple optional parameters interact, whether partial updates are supported, or any preconditions. An output schema exists, so return details are covered, but usage and behavioral context are still lacking.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter concepts (duty, symmetry, phase, etc.) but without explaining units, constraints, or relationships (e.g., edges map to rise_s/fall_s). The schema property names are already descriptive, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating 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 clearly states the tool sets specific waveform parameters (duty, symmetry, phase, pulse width, edges, delay) on a channel, using the verb 'Set'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_waveform' by listing detail parameters, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 other set/configure tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., waveform type that supports these parameters) or exclusions (e.g., basic waveform setup should use set_waveform).

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