arb_get_basic_waveform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Query' plus 'current' implies a read-only, live read with no mutation side effects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, what happens on an invalid channel, or any other operational details beyond the basic read nature.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise argument explanation. Every sentence contributes value and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, the channel constraint is documented, and an output schema exists, the description is close to adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'basic waveform parameters' actually include nor provide any usage guidance, so an agent may still be uncertain about when this tool is the right choice.

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?

The schema only specifies an integer channel, while the description adds the meaningful constraint 'Channel number (1 or 2)'. This is valuable semantic information beyond the raw schema. It still leaves room for more detail such as default or invalid-channel behavior, but it fully addresses the one required parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Query' and names the resource: 'current basic waveform parameters of a waveform generator channel'. This clearly identifies a read operation and distinguishes it from the many arb_set_* sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arb_set_waveform or arb_get_output. The read-versus-write contrast is implied by 'Query', but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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