arb_set_waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the mutation: it changes the waveform type on a channel, and enumerates valid values. However, it does not mention side effects, whether this disables modulation/sweep, error behavior, or confirmations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by two clearly formatted argument explanations. Every sentence contributes necessary information and there is no filler.

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 description is largely complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks usage routing and some behavioral context, but the core target and allowed inputs are fully specified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: channel is explained as 1 or 2, and waveform is given a concrete allowed list: SINE, SQUARE, RAMP, PULSE, NOISE, ARB, or DC. This makes the parameters actionable despite the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set the basic waveform type on the waveform generator.' It clearly separates this from sibling setters like arb_set_frequency, arb_set_amplitude, and arb_set_output, even without naming them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arb_set_am, arb_set_sweep, or arb_set_burst. An agent must infer from the name that this sets the main waveform rather than modulation or sweep behavior.

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