configure_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses side effects and preconditions: a disabled source channel is enabled automatically, the test must be enabled before running, create_from_source requires enabled and stopped state, and output_enable pulses the rear-panel AUX OUT connector on mask events. It still omits some behaviors, such as persistence and what happens to existing mask settings, but it is substantially informative.

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 compact and front-loads the high-level label, then uses a clean parameter list. Almost every line earns its place by supplying schema-absent semantics. It could be slightly better structured with an explicit tool verb and a short usage sentence, but it is efficient overall.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers most parameters and several important preconditions and side effects. However, it lacks any description for the enable parameter and gives no sibling routing to distinguish it from get_mask_config, get_mask_result, or mask save/load tools. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the usage and one parameter gap keep completeness only adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it documents 9 of the 10 parameters, including enum values for source, operate, and output_event, and numeric ranges for x_adjust, y_adjust, and output_pulse_s. The notable omission is the enable parameter, which appears in the schema but is not described as an argument. Because of that gap, it falls short of a perfect score.

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 labels the tool as a 'Pass/fail mask test' and then lists parameters, which implies configuration, but it never explicitly says it configures or sets mask test settings. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_mask_config or get_mask_result. The parameter list gives enough context to infer purpose, but the prose itself is vague.

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 includes preconditions for particular parameters, such as enabling the test before running it and enabling/stopping before create_from_source. However, it gives no overall guidance on when to use configure_mask versus get_mask_config, get_mask_result, save_mask_on_instrument, or load_mask_on_instrument. The agent must infer usage from sibling names.

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