export_bus_on_instrument

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves major gaps: no mention of file overwrite behavior, error handling when no USB is present, or permissions. The 'on the INSTRUMENT's own storage' note is useful but the only real disclosure.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action and destination front-loaded, followed by a helpful example. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to omit needed context.

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 format need not be described. However, for a 2-required-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the omission of any 'bus' guidance and any usage context leaves it only marginally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'path' semantics well via concrete examples ('C:/123.csv', 'E:/decode.csv'), but the required 'bus' integer parameter receives no explanation at all — an agent cannot tell whether it is a bus index, a bus number, or something else.

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 (export) and resource (event table) with a clear destination (CSV on the instrument's own storage/USB stick). It distinguishes itself from host-side exports by emphasizing 'INSTRUMENT's own storage,' but never names the sibling it competes with (e.g., export_waveform_csv or the save_*_on_instrument family).

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 conveys what happens but no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With siblings like export_waveform_csv and save_waveform_on_instrument, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over them beyond the resource noun.

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