osc_set_average_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool sets a configuration value and is tied to average acquisition mode, and it documents the power-of-2 constraint. However, it does not state what happens if the instrument is not in average mode or if count is not a valid power of 2.

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 two tight blocks: a one-sentence purpose plus a one-line parameter explanation. There is no filler and the key facts are front-loaded.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, so the missing return explanation is acceptable. The description covers purpose and parameter constraints, but it omits how to ensure the precondition (entering average acquisition mode) and what happens on invalid input, which an agent might need for fully reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'count: Number of averages (power of 2, e.g. 4, 16, 64, 256)' adds real meaning beyond the bare integer type and gives concrete examples. It stops short of a fuller range or minimum/maximum, but it is sufficient for typical use.

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+resource construction: 'Set the number of averages when in average acquisition mode.' This clearly states both what the tool does and the operating-mode context, and it is distinct from the many sibling osc_* tools because no other tool targets average count.

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 phrase 'when in average acquisition mode' gives a clear contextual condition for using this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the mode qualifier is sufficient for an agent to understand it is only relevant to average-mode acquisition.

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