osc_set_probe_attenuation

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set...' and documents arguments; it does not mention side effects on measurement scaling, validation of attenuation values, persistence, or error behavior. This is a mutating operation with no safety annotation to compensate.

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 front-loaded: a one-sentence summary followed by concise Arg docs. No word is wasted and the most important detail, the operation, appears first.

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 setter with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and all parameters. However, missing usage guidance and behavioral side effects leave an agent with some uncertainty about validation and consequences, making it adequate but not complete.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining channel is 1 or 2 and giving example attenuation factors. This adds meaning beyond the bare integer/number types, though it does not define the full set of accepted values.

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 probe attenuation factor on an oscilloscope channel.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling channel-configuration tools like osc_set_channel_scale or osc_set_channel_offset.

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 operation is self-explaining, but the description does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or any prerequisites. It implies usage by naming the exact setting to change, yet no explicit routing or exclusion criteria are provided.

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