configure_awg

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full load and discloses real behavioral traits: parameter precedence between frequency and period, absolute-level coupling constraints, per-waveform frequency ceilings that change with impedance and above 50 MHz, and channel mapping to SOURce1/2. It does not say whether unspecified optional parameters are left untouched or cleared, nor whether the output must already be enabled.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and function, then organized parameter-by-parameter; almost every line carries a unit, range, or override rule. The function enumeration is long but justified because the schema supplies no enum, though the presentation is dense enough to slow scanning.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's constraints and the required channel's valid values (GI/GII). The remaining gap is behavior for omitted optional settings and any prerequisite state, which an agent may need before calling a 13-parameter write.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it gives units, ranges (frequency 2 mHz-100 MHz with per-waveform caps, period 10 ns-500 s, amplitude 1 mV-20 V, phase 0-360), aliases for impedance, and the load_arbitrary path conventions. It also encodes non-obvious rules the schema cannot express (period is written last and wins; high must stay above low; DC/Noise ignore frequency).

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?

States a specific verb and resource with instrument semantics ('Configure generator channel GI/GII (SOURce1/2)'), so the agent knows this sets AWG channel output parameters. It also names the two sibling tools that cover adjacent operations (sync_awg_phase, get_awg_full_config), which separates it from them.

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?

Explicitly routes two adjacent cases to siblings: align-phase belongs to sync_awg_phase(), and reading all settings belongs to get_awg_full_config(). It does not address when to prefer this over configure_awg_modulation, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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