set_trigger_pulse_width

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the trigger must be armed/enabled, whether it resets run state, what permissions are needed, or any side effects of setting a pulse-width trigger. Only parameter ranges are given, which is thin coverage for a mutation tool.

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 content is delivered as one dense, front-loaded block with the resource named first, then the parameter semantics. Every clause carries information; there is no filler wording, though the shorthand notation is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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. But with 0% schema description coverage, 7 parameters, no annotations, and no when-to-use guidance, the description leaves significant gaps (source/level semantics, trigger arming behavior, positioning among sibling trigger tools) for a complex trigger-configuration tool.

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. It usefully adds enum values (POSitive|NEGative, GREater|LESS|GLESs) and the width units/range (1 ns to 10 s) that the bare schema lacks, covering polarity, when, lower_width and upper_width. However, 'source', 'level', and 'extra' remain completely undocumented, leaving roughly half the parameters semantically opaque.

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 names the specific resource ('Pulse width trigger'), and the verb is supplied by the tool name. It goes further by explaining the trigger's operating modes (greater/less/within range), so the agent understands what the tool configures. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling trigger tools (set_trigger_edge, set_trigger_window, set_trigger_runt, etc.).

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 use this trigger versus the other trigger types, nor any prerequisites (e.g. must a source channel be configured first). The description explains parameter semantics but gives no routing guidance among the numerous set_trigger_* siblings.

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