arb_set_output_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states the action and valid values, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (such as whether the output must be disabled), or behavior after setting a non-standard load. The straightforward nature of a setter limits the impact of this 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 short and front-loaded: one clear action sentence, then a compact argument list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or vague text.

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, the description is largely complete: both parameters are well defined and an output schema handles return details. It lacks minor contextual notes about instrument state or exact numeric limits, but these are less critical for this 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%, but the description fully compensates: channel is defined as 1 or 2, and load is defined as 'HZ' or a numeric string in ohms with an example. This adds the exact meaning and format that the schema omits.

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 verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('output load impedance on the waveform generator'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like arb_set_frequency or arb_set_amplitude. It also provides validates the allowed values for load, reinforcing the purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool through its explicit purpose, but it does not offer any explicit guidance, preconditions, or comparisons to alternative sibling tools. For example, it doesn't mention when to use this vs. other ar b set tools or whether any output state constraints apply.

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