mhs5200_upload_arb_waveform

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about device memory and confirmation, but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-organized with clear paragraphs and bullet points, but the Args/Returns section is somewhat redundant with the schema and output schema, adding slight verbosity.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity, the description thoroughly covers data requirements, file formats, and return value, leaving no major gaps given the presence of an output schema.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters (arb_index and filepath). The description adds the mapping to ARB00-ARB15 and the 2048 midpoint value, but this is marginal additional meaning.

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 action ('upload') and resource ('custom arbitrary waveform data to device memory'), distinguishing itself from sibling tools like mhs5200_set_waveform which likely handle preset waveforms.

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 detailed data requirements (2048 samples, 0-4095 range) and file formats, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when to upload custom waveforms vs using other functions like set_waveform.

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