set_display

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral detail: accepted value sets, the OFF-as-NONE alias, and the normalization rule that suffixed durations are rejected by firmware. However it omits whether settings persist across reboot, whether this is a read-modify-write, and any error behavior for out-of-range values.

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?

It is a compact enumerated list where each line earns its place by giving a value domain or a behavioral caveat. The one-word 'Display settings.' opener is a bit sparse and the multi-field braces are dense, but there is 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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and all parameters are explained, so the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is operational context (persistence across reboots, interaction with save_setup) that an agent might want before mutating display state.

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%, yet the description documents all 11 parameters with concrete value domains (DOTS|VECTors, MIN..INFinite, 1..100 ranges, FULL|HALF|NONE) and clarifies that the display-side parameters are boolean toggles. This fully compensates for the schema gap and is exactly what an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 header 'Display settings' plus the enumerated parameters make it clear this tool configures the oscilloscope's display (grid, persistence, brightness, rulers, waveform hold). It doesn't name its natural sibling get_display, so sibling differentiation is only implicit via the read/write naming convention.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_display, set_cursor, or set_timebase, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the parameter list.

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