set_measure_counter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: enable turns the counter on/off, source accepts CH1..CH4 or D0..D15, and the value is read back via :MEASure:COUNter:VALue? when enabled. It does not discuss permissions or mutability in detail, but for an SCPI instrument setter this is substantially transparent.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core command-tree context, then quickly covers the sibling comparison, parameter meanings, and readback behavior.

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-value details are not strictly required. The description still covers both parameters and the readback query condition, leaving only minor gaps such as default null handling or prerequisite 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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does so clearly: enable means counter on/off, and source accepts CH1..CH4 or D0..D15, adding allowed values absent from the 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 states a specific resource (frequency counter) and command path (:MEASure:COUNter), and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling set_counter. An agent can distinguish it from set_counter based solely on the description.

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?

It names the relevant alternative (set_counter) and explains the key distinction: same counter but through the :MEASure command tree. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool, though no explicit when-not conditions are provided.

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