set_trigger_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the meaningful constraint that 'time' only applies when position=TIME, which is real behavioral context, but it never states that this mutates instrument trigger configuration, whether it overwrites prior settings, or any permission/side-effect profile.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the tool's purpose before the parameter hints, with no filler. Slightly cryptic abbreviations ('RFALl', one-line parameter list) cost a little clarity but not size.

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 no explanation. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema documentation, the description leaves more than half the parameters and all side-effect behavior unaddressed.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only covers slope, position, and time. It usefully supplies enum-like values (POSitive|NEGative|RFALl, EXIT|ENTer|TIME) that the schema lacks, but level_a, level_b, source, and extra — the actual voltage window definition — go undocumented.

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-resource pairing ('Window trigger') and parenthetically defines the mechanism (enter/exit/timeout within a voltage window). This distinguishes it from its many trigger siblings like set_trigger_edge or set_trigger_pulse_width, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the window-trigger semantics and the parenthetical explaining enter/exit/timeout positions, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or exclusion against other trigger types such as set_trigger_runt or set_trigger_timeout.

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