Configure oscilloscope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Only provided fields are sent' (partial-update semantics) — plus the units convention. But for a mutation tool it says nothing about whether changes persist, whether a session/resource must be open, or what happens on invalid values.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler; the units note is compact and useful. It is arguably a touch thin given a 13-parameter surface, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description does cover the main configuration groups. Still, with no annotations and 13 loosely documented parameters, it leaves substantial gaps: session prerequisites, the meaning of probe/channel/resource, and any error or persistence behavior.

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 only ~15%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: it names the parameter groups (scale, offset, coupling, timebase, trigger) and supplies the units (volts, seconds) that the schema omits for offset_v/trigger_level. However, roughly half the 13 parameters — probe, channel, dialect, display, resource, trigger_source — are never explained in the schema or the description.

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 verb 'Set' is paired with the specific resources it manipulates (channel scale/offset/coupling, timebase, edge trigger), so an agent can immediately tell this configures an oscilloscope. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like scope_acquire or scope_capture_waveform, relying on the reader to infer the config-vs-measure split.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus scope_acquire, scope_capture_waveform, or query. Nor does it state any prerequisite such as an open instrument session, which matters given the open_instrument/close_instrument siblings. The reader gets no routing help.

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