osc_auto_setup

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never explains what auto-setup actually does, whether it overwrites current oscilloscope settings, or whether it has side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent evaluating the tool's impact.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: the verb and resource are immediately clear, and the sentence is appropriately short for a zero-parameter operation. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description does not convey what auto-setup configures or when it should be used. Given no annotations and no additional context, an agent receives minimal information beyond the tool name itself, leaving a noticeable gap.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no semantic burden on the description; the input schema already covers everything. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies because there is nothing 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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('auto-setup on the oscilloscope'), so the core action is identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling oscilloscope tools, but 'auto-setup' is a distinct operation and the description is not a mere tautology.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives such as osc_set_timebase or osc_set_trigger_mode. No prerequisites, exclusions, or situational context are given, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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