set_timebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose some behavior: auto-ROLL threshold (>=50 ms/div), expansion reference behavior when the timebase changes, and vernier fine adjustment. However, it omits broader mutation context such as persistence, side effects on other settings, required instrument state, or reversibility.

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 dense but appropriately sized for 14 parameters. However, the opener 'Horizontal system.' is a fragment and not front-loaded with a clear purpose. The parameter list lacks formatting, making it harder to scan than it could be.

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. The description covers parameter meanings but leaves out the tool's purpose, usage guidance, and broader behavioral context for a 14-parameter setter. It is partially complete but has significant gaps.

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% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents units (s/div, s), allowed values (MAIN|XY|ROLL, CENTer|LB|RB|TRIG|USER, FULL|HALF|NONE), ranges (-500..500, 1..4), and accepted channel formats ('CH3', 'CHANnel3'). The delay_* parameters are grouped without individual detail, but overall the description adds substantial meaning beyond 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 opens with 'Horizontal system.' which is a category label, not a verb+resource. The parameter list implies configuration of the horizontal timebase, but the tool's action is never explicitly stated. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_timebase or set_acquire.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The note that xy_enable is an alternative to mode='XY' is a parameter interaction, not tool-level usage advice. An agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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