save_waveform_on_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful concrete behavior beyond a bare mutation claim: the underlying SCPI command, the allowed .bin/.csv suffixes, and the 26-character filename limit. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior, required instrument state, permissions, or failure modes, which are significant gaps for a storage-write tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the two hard constraints. Every clause earns its place with no 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 explained. For a one-parameter save tool the description covers destination, format, and naming limits, leaving only overwrite/error semantics unaddressed.

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 single path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the format of the path via the SCPI command form (:SAVE:WAVeform <path>), the permitted file suffixes, and the maximum filename length. Only the path root/prefix convention is left ambiguous.

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 ('Store') and resource ('screen waveform') and distinguishes itself from the near-named siblings by specifying the screen (display) waveform source and the on-instrument destination. It stops short of explicitly naming save_memory_waveform_on_instrument or export_waveform_csv as the alternatives, but the scope marker 'screen waveform' is enough for an agent to tell them apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'on the instrument's own storage' hints that this differs from host-side export tools, and 'screen waveform' hints that the memory-waveform sibling is different. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over save_memory_waveform_on_instrument, save_image_on_instrument, or export_waveform_csv.

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