configure_record

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 valid ranges (10 ns .. 1 s; 1 ms .. 1 s), the enum options for mode/direction/step, and error behavior (unknown keywords raise ValueError). It stops short of stating whether this is a persistent write, connection requirements, or interaction effects on other subsystems.

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-loads purpose, then uses clear 'Recording:' / 'Playback:' labels with compact clause-style parameter notes. Given 16 undocumented parameters, every sentence is load-bearing and the structure is easy to scan.

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 operations, value domains, and error behavior for a 16-parameter, zero-coverage schema. The undocumented 'enable' parameter and absence of when-to-use context are the only notable omissions.

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 documents nearly all 16 parameters with value options and ranges (operate RUN|STOP, frames_max semantics, playback_mode REPeat|SINGle, etc.). Only 'enable' is left undocumented, a minor gap against otherwise thorough coverage.

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 concrete verb-plus-resource ('Waveform recorder and playback') and then enumerates the exact recording and playback operations it controls. An agent can distinguish it from sibling configurators like configure_search or configure_la from the description alone.

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 details the parameters and their operations but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_record_status or other configure_* siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. connection state). Usage is implied by the recording/playback split rather than explicitly guided.

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