get_basic_wave

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is safe, and the description matches with 'Get'. The description adds value by listing the specific parameters included, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any side effects. Given the annotation covers the main safety concern, 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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids fluff and provides a useful list of example parameters, earning its place without excess.

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 one-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint, the description plus schema is mostly complete. It identifies the purpose, the target channel, and key parameters. It lacks return format, but the absence of an output schema lowers this need; still, a brief mention of what the response includes would have made it fully complete.

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%: the only parameter 'channel' has a clear description and enum of C1/C2. The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema for parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is warranted due to full schema coverage.

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 gets basic waveform parameters (type, frequency, amplitude, etc.) from a channel. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'basic waveform parameters' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_modulation and get_sweep.

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 context is implied: the tool is for reading basic waveform settings, contrasting with configuration tools like configure_basic_wave. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other get_* tools or what to do if the channel is invalid. The 'etc.' at the end leaves scope slightly ambiguous.

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