osc_set_channel_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the central behavior—toggling whether a channel trace is enabled or disabled—and the meaning of the state parameter. However, it does not mention whether this affects acquisition, run/stop state, or other channel settings, leaving some behavioral context implicit.

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 efficient: one sentence states the operation, followed by a minimal two-item Args block. There is no filler, and the core purpose is 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?

For a simple two-parameter boolean setter, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: both parameter semantics and the intended effect are clear. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It lacks sibling differentiation, but this is covered by the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 only indicates types (integer, boolean) with no semantic explanation. The description fully compensates by defining channel as '1 or 2' and state as 'True to enable, False to disable', which is essential and sufficient given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 operation ('Enable or disable') on a specific resource ('a channel trace on the oscilloscope'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like osc_set_channel_scale, osc_set_channel_offset, and osc_set_channel_coupling, which configure other aspects of a channel.

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, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no sibling tools are referenced. The agent must infer the intended use case from the name and the brevity of the description.

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