set_counter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses mode-dependent parameter applicability and the meaning of the totalize_enable/totalize_clear switches, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., whether acquisition must be stopped) or side effects of reconfiguring the counter, so a mutation tool remains only partially characterized.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses a compact per-parameter list with no filler. Efficient and easy to scan, though the enumeration is dense and could be marginally tightened.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the description covers most of the six parameters with ranges and mode dependencies. The undocumented 'enable' parameter and the absence of any prerequisite/state context are the remaining gaps for a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no schema enums, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, documenting allowed mode strings with short forms, the 3-6 integer range for digits, valid source values (CH1..CH4 / D0..D15), and mode-scoping for totalize_enable and totalize_clear. The 'enable' parameter is left unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource ('Configure the hardware counter') and immediately enumerates the configurable aspects. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related siblings set_measure_counter or read_counter, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling tools (e.g., set_measure_counter, read_counter). However, the per-parameter mode constraints (digits only for Period/Frequency, totalize_clear only for Totalize) implicitly tell the agent which fields apply under which configuration, which is better than nothing.

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