configure_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the runtime rejection of mode changes, the stop_first workaround sending :STOP, the FRAMe requirement of recorded frames, and that FRAMe is an undocumented firmware-observed alias. It omits any statement about side effects on acquisition state or reversibility, but the operational behavior is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Per-parameter structure with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence makes it scannable, and every line carries information. Parenthetical asides about firmware versions and compatibility are useful but slightly bloat the lines.

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 explained, and the description covers six of seven parameters plus the key runtime constraint. The undefined 'enable' parameter and the unaddressed relationship to navigate_to_event are the remaining holes in an otherwise complete definition.

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% and all seven parameters are bare, so the description must compensate; it documents mode, time_speed (with the raw-number passthrough), frame_speed, time_play, goto (with accepted value formats like 'TIME:STARt' and 'time_next'), and stop_first. Only 'enable' is left undefined, which is a modest gap in an otherwise strong mapping.

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 opens with a concrete verb-plus-resource statement ('Navigation (time or search navigation) for waveform review') and enumerates the specific settings it controls. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like get_navigate_config, but it never acknowledges the likely overlap with navigate_to_event, which also performs navigation jumps.

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?

It supplies one real prerequisite rule — the instrument rejects mode changes while running, so set stop_first=True (and FRAMe needs recorded frames) — which is genuinely actionable. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus navigate_to_event, configure_search, or get_navigate_config, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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