set_resistor_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the firmware has no native auto-restore command, so rng=null is implemented by re-switching the current mode. This is valuable side-effect information an agent would otherwise not know. It does not say whether the mode re-switch disturbs other settings, ongoing captures, or requires an active connection, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and value mapping, followed by the null/auto behavior. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the value domain, defaults, and the restore quirk. It leaves unstated whether the change persists, what happens on invalid input, or whether it interferes with an in-progress capture, which keeps it just under complete.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does fully: it explains the 0-4 integer scale, the physical meaning of each end of the scale, and that null means restore auto. Nothing about the single parameter is left 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 ('锁定量程' / lock the range) and immediately defines the value domain: 0 = most sensitive (~nA), 4 = maximum (~A). An agent can distinguish this from sibling setters like set_mode or set_source_voltage without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: the device defaults to auto range, and this tool is used to lock it. It also specifies how to return to auto (rng=null), which is actionable usage guidance. No explicit when-not or comparison against sibling setters, so it stops short of a 5.

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