export_waveform_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does flag a genuinely important side effect ('stops the instrument'), which is real value beyond the schema, but it omits where the file is written, permissions/access needs, and typical runtime or size implications of a full-memory export.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the caveat about stopping the instrument is placed where it will be read. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a non-obvious side effect, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer. The output schema covers return values, but parameter meaning and file-destination behavior are absent.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds essentially nothing about mode, source, start/stop, or filename; only 'full-memory' loosely hints at the range arguments. The other parameters (mode RAW, source CH1, filename) are unexplained in both description and 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?

States a specific verb+resource (CSV export of waveform data) and a scope qualifier ('full-memory'), which separates it from siblings like save_waveform_on_instrument and get_waveform. It does not explicitly say whether the CSV lands on the host or the instrument, leaving mild ambiguity against those siblings.

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 statement of when to use this versus save_waveform_on_instrument, get_waveform, or save_memory_waveform_on_instrument. The 'full-memory' qualifier implies a use case, but nothing tells the agent when this is the wrong choice.

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