get_waveform_preamble

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: apply=True may modify source/mode settings while apply=False is a pure query, plus the MATH-only-NORMal-mode restriction. This is meaningful side-effect disclosure, though it does not address permissions or idempotency.

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 purpose, then return fields, then behavioral and parameter constraints. It is dense but each clause adds information; the parentheticals (engineering interpretation, MATH sources only support NORMal mode) earn their place as qualifiers rather than filler.

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 detailed (though listing them is harmless). With 0% schema coverage, the description covers all parameters and the key side-effect behavior, making it complete enough to call the tool correctly. It lacks only explicit sibling routing.

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 substantially does: it enumerates source values (CH1..CH4, MATH1..MATH4), mode values (NORMal|MAXimum|RAW) with the MATH constraint, and explains apply semantics. All three parameters receive meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('the 10 waveform preamble parameters of a source') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not name the sibling it most closely resembles (get_waveform, get_math_waveform), so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'apply=False only queries without touching source/mode settings' gives a conditional usage cue for the apply flag, and the MATH-mode restriction is a scoping rule. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_waveform or get_waveform_setup, so usage is only implied.

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