dmm_set_range

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the range is set and gives an example; it does not address interaction with auto-range, units relative to the currently selected measurement function, or handling of invalid values. For a mutating instrument-control tool, this is a meaningful 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 front-loaded and compact: a one-sentence operation statement followed by a small Args block. There is no filler, repetition, or re-listing of schema-only facts.

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 one-parameter setter with an output schema, the basics are present: operation, scope, and parameter meaning. However, it leaves out range constraints, unit applicability across measurement functions, and the relationship to auto-range, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema only says 'value' is a number with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining value as a range value and providing a unit-based example ('10 for 10V range'), which is genuinely useful for a single-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Set') and resource ('measurement range on the multimeter'), with a concrete value example. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dmm_get_range (read) and dmm_set_auto_range (automatic mode).

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. It never mentions dmm_set_auto_range or the conditions under which manual range setting is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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