sdg1062x_trigger

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

Annotations are all false, offering no behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It adds context like 'guarded' and 'armed' but does not explain what these mean or possible side effects, such as output changes or errors if not armed.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With three parameters, a 0% schema description coverage, and an existing output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites, parameter meanings, and behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not clarify the meaning of 'channel', 'mode', or 'confirm_trigger'. It only hints that the tool relates to sweep or burst, which is insufficient for understanding how to set parameters.

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 ('Send') and resource ('manual trigger to an armed sweep or burst'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by referencing the armed state. It is clear but could be more explicit about instrument-specific details.

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 usage when a sweep or burst is armed, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or prerequisites like prior configuration.

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