set_trigger_runt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about what happens to an existing trigger configuration, whether settings persist, what permissions or run-state are required, or what the tool returns. Listing enum values is parameter detail, not behavioral context.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the trigger type, but it is a fragmentary note rather than a coherent definition, and the cramped enum spelling (e.g. "GLESs") reads like copied internal documentation. It is concise without being sufficiently informative.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter trigger setter with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation the description is far too thin. An agent would need to guess the meaning of the level and width parameters to call this correctly.

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?

With 8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description documents only two of them (`polarity` with POSitive|NEGative and `when` with NONE|GREater|LESS|GLESs). `source`, `level_a`, `level_b`, `width_lower`, `width_upper`, and `extra` are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving most of the calling contract unexplained.

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?

"Runt pulse trigger" identifies the trigger resource/type and, via the tool name, implies configuration, but stops short of stating a verb or what is actually being set. It does implicitly distinguish this from the many sibling trigger configurators (edge, slope, window, pulse_width), so an agent can route to it, but the purpose is only implied rather than stated.

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 tool versus siblings like set_trigger_edge, set_trigger_pulse_width, or set_trigger_window, and no prerequisites such as whether acquisition must be stopped first. The only usage-adjacent text is the enumeration of acceptable `polarity` and `when` values.

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