set_measure_sources_ab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a write operation targeting :MEASure:SETup:PSA/DSA and PSB/DSB, notes the functions are identical per the manual, and states the call returns a read-back of all four. It omits permission/state requirements, but the mutation semantics are clear.

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 primary action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries new information (register mapping, valid values, return behavior) with no padding. Dense but efficient.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers what is written, the valid value domain, and the return read-back; the output schema can carry the return detail. It is largely complete, with only permission/state context 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines both parameters' meaning (Source A, Source B) and enumerates valid values (CH1..CH4 / MATH1..4 / D0..D15). It adds real meaning beyond the bare string-typed 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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource (Source A / Source B for phase and delay measurements), so the agent knows exactly what the tool configures. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

The clause 'used by phase and delay measurements' implies when the tool is relevant, giving implied usage. However, no alternatives are named and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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