sdg1062x_upload_arbitrary_waveform

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

Annotations provide no specific safety hints (all false), so the description carries some burden. It adds important context about the format (2..16384 points, normalized, 16-bit little-endian) but does not disclose side effects like overwriting an existing waveform of the same name or whether the upload persists in non-volatile memory. Since annotations exist but are unhelpful, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 filler. It front-loads the core action and format, making it highly scannable. Every word provides value.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema details provided, the description covers the essential upload format but omits important context such as the meaning of 'normalized' (range) and how the uploaded waveform relates to the channel or later selection. Since there is an output schema (though not shown), return values are less critical, but the parameter semantics and device behavior remain under-specified.

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 only adds meaning for the 'points' parameter (normalized count range). It does not explain 'channel', 'name', or the numerical parameters like frequency, amplitude, offset, and phase, leaving the agent to infer their roles from the schema alone. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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's function: uploading a specific number of normalized points as a 16-bit little-endian user arbitrary waveform. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select_arbitrary_waveform' and 'set_waveform' by focusing on the upload action and format.

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 (when uploading a user-defined waveform) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as selecting an existing waveform or setting a standard waveform. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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