arb_set_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the enable/disable side effect and the True/False semantics, but it does not mention prerequisites, error behavior, or whether the change persists after a reset.

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 the core purpose, followed by a minimal, focused argument list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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-parameter setter with an output schema available, the essential calling information is present. The only minor gap is the absence of context about device prerequisites or error conditions, but these are not critical for this basic toggling operation.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: channel is constrained to 1 or 2, and state maps True to enable and False to disable. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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—'Enable or disable the output of a waveform generator channel'—with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like arb_get_output, which reads state, and other arb_set_* tools that modify waveform parameters.

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 action is clear, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as arb_get_output for querying the current state. Usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions or conditions.

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