Measure period, frequency, duty cycle, and jitter of a clock or PWM channel, and detect non-periodic signals when fewer than two rising edges appear in the capture window.
Measure period, frequency, duty cycle and jitter of a clock/PWM channel. Returns periodic=false when fewer than two rising edges exist in the window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| start_s | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| duration_s | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: periodic=false when fewer than two rising edges fall in the window. It says nothing about required capture state, whether the capture must already be loaded, how the window is chosen if start_s/duration_s are omitted, or what the full return shape looks like.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded before the edge-case caveat. Every clause adds information.
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?
A four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage gets only two sentences of explanation. The agent is left without windowing semantics, capture prerequisites, or return-field detail beyond the single periodic flag.
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 for all four parameters. It only clarifies 'channel' as a clock/PWM channel; capture_id, start_s, and duration_s are never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess whether the window defaults to the whole capture and what identifiers are valid.
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 ('Measure') with a concrete set of quantities (period, frequency, duty cycle, jitter) and a clearly bounded resource (clock/PWM channel). An agent can distinguish it from decode_uart or decode_protocol, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closer sibling analyze_window.
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 measurement list implies the use case (periodic signal characterization), and the edge-condition sentence hints at input requirements. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of analyze_window when...' guidance and no stated prerequisites such as the capture needing a digital channel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.