Run a voltage/current sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses background execution, output switching, default end=off behavior on completion or job_stop, repeat semantics, optional logging, and bench-limit checking before each step. It still omits error handling, concurrency behavior, and how the background job is identified or monitored.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core action first and then covering step format, file input, repeat, end behavior, logging, and safety checks. Every segment carries useful information without redundant filler.

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 moderate-complexity background job tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core execution and side effects but leaves gaps around return values, job monitoring, error behavior, and interaction between steps/file. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to call and manage the operation confidently.

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 only 33%, but the description adds important meaning beyond the schema: the shape and semantics of steps, the CSV-like file format, repeat=0 meaning until job_stop, end=off vs keep, and optional log behavior. It does not explain the `every` parameter or clarify whether `steps` and `file` are mutually exclusive.

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 specific action and resource: run timed steps in the background, with each step setting VSET/ISET and switching output on. It is distinguishable from a simple set/output operation by its sequence semantics, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as set or output.

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?

Usage is implied by describing timed steps, repeat cycles, and end behavior, including repeat=0 until job_stop. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like set, output, or watch, nor are exclusion conditions stated.

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