osc_set_channel_scale

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 disclosing behavior. It indicates that the tool mutates instrument state by 'Set', but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, whether the channel must be active, or what happens on invalid input. This is minimal, similar to other mutation tools with no annotation support.

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 only two lines plus an Args block, every part earned its place. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter descriptions are concise and useful. There is no tautology 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 two-parameter setter with an output schema, this is mostly complete: both parameters are explained clearly. Missing pieces include valid scale boundaries and any behavioral context such as whether the instrument must be stopped or whether the setting takes effect immediately. That leaves a noticeable gap for an agent that must call the tool correctly in an actual session.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'channel' is specified as 1 or 2, and 'scale' is specified as volts per division. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/number schema. It stops short of giving a valid range for scale, so it misses a perfect score.

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 verb and resource: 'Set the vertical scale (V/div) of an oscilloscope channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like osc_set_channel_offset, osc_set_channel_coupling, and osc_set_timebase by naming the exact instrument setting being changed.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention siblings, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the tool name and context.

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