get_waveform_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that this is a read-back operation and that values are returned 'as engineered values (ints/floats)', clarifying the return typing. It omits any note on rate limits, instrument state requirements, or side effects, but for a pure query tool the disclosure is solid.

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 the query list and the sibling comparison. Every sentence is informative, though the long enumerated SCPI query list is dense; still, it earns its place by telling the agent exactly what is read.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described here) and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema; a baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of which queries are issued is bonus context rather than parameter semantics.

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 ('Read back') and resource (the :WAVeform read-out configuration), and enumerates the exact SCPI queries involved (source/mode/format/points/start/stop plus six axis scaling queries). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_waveform_preamble by noting the preamble returns the same axis data in a single query.

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?

Names the alternative (get_waveform_preamble) and the condition that would favor it ('returns the same axis data in a single query'), giving the agent a routing signal. However, it does not state explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites for this tool beyond that comparison.

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