mhs5200_set_amplitude

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating that attenuation is automatically adjusted for optimal output, which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It also describes the return format (JSON confirmation). No contradictions detected.

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 concise, using four brief sentences plus a structured 'Args' section. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. The structure is clean and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential behavior: setting amplitude, automatic attenuation, and return format. Annotations fill in safety and idempotency. However, it does not mention that the device must be connected or any other prerequisites, which would enhance completeness for a new user.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section listing channel and vpp with types and ranges, but this largely mirrors the input schema's property descriptions. Since the schema already provides detailed descriptions, the description adds minimal new semantic information. However, the description does present the information in a clear, consolidated manner.

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 purpose: 'Set the peak-to-peak voltage for a channel.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of automatic attenuation adjustment adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, which all set different parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mhs5200_set_frequency or mhs5200_set_waveform. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected) or contexts where this tool is inappropriate. Users are left to infer from the name and siblings.

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