get_arbitrary_wave

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating what is returned (waveform index and name), going beyond the bare annotation. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word is necessary. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple getter with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The readOnlyHint annotation supplies the safety context, and the schema covers the parameter, making the description complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100% with the channel parameter fully documented via enum and description. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond repeating 'channel,' so it meets but does not exceed the baseline expected when the schema carries the parameter information.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: 'current arbitrary waveform selection for a channel.' It also states the return value (waveform index and name), which differentiates this getter from siblings like get_basic_wave or get_modulation.

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 clearly implies use when querying the current arbitrary waveform selection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention the sibling set_arbitrary_wave. The usage context is implied rather than directly expressed.

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