osc_set_memory_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, whether the current acquisition is cleared, whether the scope must be stopped, or how the setting interacts with timebase and acquire mode.

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 tight: one action sentence plus a single arg line with examples. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the key 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 single-parameter setter, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the action, the target resource, and example values. However, with no annotations and no full value grammar, it leaves gaps around valid values beyond the examples and any operational consequences, so it is complete only in the most basic sense.

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 input schema provides only a bare string property with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by labeling the parameter as 'Memory size' and giving concrete examples of valid notation such as '7K', '70K', '700K', '7M', and '14M', which substantially helps the agent format the value.

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 acquisition memory depth on the oscilloscope.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like osc_set_timebase, osc_set_acquire_mode, and osc_set_channel_scale.

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 intended use is implied by 'memory depth' and the tool name, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Among many osc_set_* siblings, the agent must infer this is for acquisition memory only and is not told how this interacts with related settings like timebase or acquire mode.

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