set_sample_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses that the value is in samples via the example. It does not mention valid ranges, whether a connection is required, whether the setting applies immediately, or how it interacts with sample time/rate.

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 entire description is one short sentence that front-loads the operation and then clarifies units with an example. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 setter, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: no usage alternatives, no valid range, and no behavioral details. Since no annotations or output schema exist, the description should provide a bit more context about prerequisites or constraints.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only labels the parameter as 'depth', so the description compensates by defining it as a sample count and providing a concrete example (20000000 = 20M). It could add bounds or allowed values, but it gives enough semantic meaning for the single parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource, 'Set sample depth', and adds the meaningful unit 'in samples' with a concrete example. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_sample_time or set_sample_rate, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_sample_time or set_sample_rate. The description implies only that this tool sets depth, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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