get_math_waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that samples are written to disk, that only statistics are returned inline, that MATH sources are only readable in NORMal mode (a verified firmware quirk), and that the wrapper forces NORMal. These are non-obvious side effects and constraints an agent needs.

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-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the SCPI mechanics and firmware quirk. Slightly dense with technical detail, but every sentence adds real value for correct invocation.

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 described, and the file-write behavior is well covered. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the parameters remain a real documentation hole that the description does not fill.

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 4 parameters (fmt, index, filename, save_format), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely ties 'MATH1..MATH4' to the index parameter; fmt, filename, and save_format are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Acquire') and resource ('computed waveform of math channel MATH1..MATH4'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_waveform by noting it uses :WAVeform:SOURce MATH<n> rather than a math-specific data command. An agent can route confidently between the two.

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?

Clearly implies usage for math channels and contrasts with get_waveform ('Samples go to disk exactly like get_waveform; only statistics come back inline'). It does not, however, give explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions for choosing among math siblings (configure_math, get_math_fft_peaks).

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