mhs5200_set_frequency

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns JSON confirming the setting, but does not disclose error conditions, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., disables sweep?). Adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line purpose, clear parameter list, and return statement. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 and the annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the key parameter semantics and return value. However, it could mention that the frequency must be within the model's supported range and that setting frequency might affect sweep settings if active.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it mentions the frequency range '0.01 to max supported by model' and that channel is '1 or 2', which aligns with the schema but provides additional context on the range limit.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'output frequency for a channel', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_amplitude or set_duty_cycle.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_sweep or configure_sweep). The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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