get_awg_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return format ('raw SCPI strings') and enumerates the covered settings (output state, function, frequency, amplitude, offset, phase, impedance), which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about channel range validation, whether the AWG must be enabled, or any error behavior for an invalid channel.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a scoping/alternative clause. Nothing is redundant and the sizing matches the complexity of the tool.

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 scope and the sibling alternative adequately. The only real gap is the undocumented channel parameter, which leaves a minor hole for a tool whose sole input is that parameter.

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 there is a single required parameter ('channel') that the description never mentions. It does not say what channel values are valid or how the channel number maps to the instrument's :SOURce<n> numbering, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource ('Read back the core generator channel configuration') and immediately delimits scope with the parenthetical '(raw SCPI strings)'. It also names the exact sibling (get_awg_full_config) that covers the complementary superset, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent: use get_awg_full_config() when you need every :SOURce<n> readback such as period, high/low levels, duty, symmetry, arb path and modulation. That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement. It stops short of stating prerequisites or failure conditions, so it is not a full 5.

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