configure_measure_amplitude

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that AMPMethod enables the tree, which is a useful dependency, but it does not state that this is a mutation, what instrument state changes, permissions, persistence, or side effects.

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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose before parameter details. The fragmentary first sentence and compact semicolon-separated list are efficient, though not polished.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameter values, and an output schema exists for return values. However, for a configuration tool it omits usage context and behavioral effects, leaving the agent unable to judge when or why to call it beyond setting parameter values.

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. It does: it explains each of the four optional parameters and lists valid values (THReshold/RANGe/AMPMethod, AUTO/MANual, HISTogram/MAXMin), adding substantial meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 specific resource, the amplitude measurement method, and anchors it to the SCPI :MEASure:AMP tree. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling measurement-configuration tools, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. It explains parameter choices but not the context in which this tool should be selected over configure_measure_setup or other measure tools.

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