dmm_set_trigger_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the trigger source will be set but does not mention whether this affects pending measurements, whether it persists across device resets, whether certain modes are required, or what happens with an invalid source. For a mutating configuration command, this leaves notable 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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and then enumerating the parameter value in a clean Args block. Every sentence contributes needed information without redundancy or 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 one-parameter setter, the description covers the essential invocation details and the output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. However, it omits the meaning of IMM/BUS/EXT and how this setting interacts with dmm_trigger or dmm_read, which an agent would need to make a fully informed call. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 defines 'source' as a string with no enums or details, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly listing the allowed values: IMM, BUS, EXT. It does not explain the meaning or selection context of each value, but it provides the critical constraint that the schema is missing.

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 trigger source on the multimeter.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and device, and distinguishes it from other trigger-related tools like dmm_trigger and osc_set_trigger_source. The allowed source values are also included, making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dmm_trigger or other DMM configuration tools. It does not mention prerequisites, sequencing with dmm_trigger, or exclude cases where another trigger-setting method is appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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