osc_set_channel_coupling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and valid coupling values, but does not mention side effects, such as whether GND coupling disconnects the input, whether the channel must be enabled first, or whether applying a new coupling affects measurement behavior.

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 compact sentences plus a short argument list. The main verb phrase is front-loaded, and every line earns its place by providing the key usage constraints without unnecessary prose.

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 two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description supplies all information needed to invoke the tool correctly: the target resource, the argument constraints, and valid values. It could be more complete by noting behavior or prerequisites, but the core invocation context is covered.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both arguments: channel must be 1 or 2, and coupling must be AC, DC, or GND. These constraints are not present in the input schema, so the description adds essential meaning beyond the structured fields.

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: 'Set the coupling mode of an oscilloscope channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling oscilloscope commands like osc_set_channel_state or osc_set_channel_scale. The scope and target are 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when changing coupling is appropriate or how it relates to other oscilloscope setup commands. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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