osc_measure

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core action clearly and lists valid inputs, but it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or behavior on invalid input. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, but the description still lacks operational context such as whether the measurement uses the current displayed acquisition.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a tight Args block. The parameter list is long but necessary for correctness, and there is no filler or redundant content. Every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter instrument read, the description covers the core inputs and the operation name well, and the output schema handles the return value. However, it omits important operational prerequisites such as an enabled channel and a stable/triggered acquisition, and it gives no when-to-use guidance among the many sibling tools. It is minimally viable 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 schema provides only types and titles with 0% description coverage, so the description's Args block does essential work. It specifies that channel accepts 1 or 2 and gives the complete list of valid parameter strings. This resolves most of the semantic gap, though individual parameter meanings and units are not elaborated.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Measure a waveform parameter on the oscilloscope.' It clearly distinguishes this measurement operation from the many setup-oriented osc_* siblings, and the enumerated parameter list makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a clear action to invoke.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use osc_measure versus alternatives such as dmm_measure, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention that the oscilloscope must be acquiring, the channel must be enabled, or how this measurement relates to other osc_* tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'measure'.

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