sync_awg_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying SCPI command and that both generator channels are reconfigured to preset frequency and phase, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not state whether settings are overwritten, whether output state is affected, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 two compact sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The manual-reference parenthetical is useful context rather than waste.

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-value description is not required. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is only partially complete: it explains the operation's effect but leaves the required channel parameter and usage conditions insufficiently specified.

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 for the single required 'channel' parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references :SOURce<n>, which hints that the parameter selects a source, but it never explains the allowed values or exactly what the channel argument controls, and saying 'both generator channels are re-configured' makes the singular required channel parameter ambiguous.

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 states a specific operation, 'align phase', and specifies the SCPI command plus the resulting behavior: both generator channels are reconfigured so identical or integer-multiple frequencies become phase-aligned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby AWG configuration siblings such as set_awg_output or configure_awg.

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 description implies when the tool is useful by explaining the phase-alignment outcome for identical or integer-multiple frequencies, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The guidance is therefore only implied rather than actionable.

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