arb_set_duty_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys the effect (sets duty cycle) and scope (square/pulse), but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, valid duty range, or whether the generator output must be active. Basic behavior is clear, but additional behavioral context is minimal.

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, with a short Args block that directly supports the two schema parameters. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-argument setter with an output schema, the core purpose and both parameters are documented. However, practical context is incomplete: it does not mention selecting a square/pulse waveform before use, the valid duty range, or any channel-specific behavior, leaving an agent to infer these details.

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 provides only types and titles, so the Args section adds genuine value: channel is constrained to 1 or 2 and duty is described as a percentage. Both parameters are covered, exceeding the 0% schema description coverage, though a numeric duty range and invalid-value handling are not specified.

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 action ('Set'), the target property ('duty cycle (%)'), and the applicable context ('square/pulse waveforms on the waveform generator'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arb_set_frequency or arb_set_amplitude without requiring 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?

The phrase 'for square/pulse waveforms' implicitly limits applicability, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus sibling arb_set_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as selecting the waveform type first or enabling the output. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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