arb_set_frequency

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'set' the frequency; it does not mention whether this immediately affects a running output, requires the output to be enabled, or interacts with modulation/sweep settings. For a state-changing instrument operation, this is a noticeable gap.

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 extremely compact: two sentences plus two argument bullets. Every line earns its place, and the primary verb-resource-unit statement is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema content beyond what is helpful.

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 low-complexity setter with two scalar parameters, the description covers parameter semantics well and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. However, the absence of any behavioral context (side effects, dependencies, or when not to use) leaves the definition merely adequate rather than fully 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by specifying that channel must be 1 or 2 and that frequency is expressed in Hz. The schema only provides integer/number types, so this extra constraint and unit information is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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 action ('Set the output frequency'), the resource ('waveform generator'), and the unit ('in Hz'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arb_set_amplitude or arb_set_waveform by naming exactly which parameter is being configured.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. While the name and sibling set strongly imply it is for frequency changes, there is no explicit context such as 'use when the output is already configured' or 'not valid during sweep/modulation modes.'

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