osc_set_trigger_level

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 behavioral disclosure. The description merely restates the action in the name and adds the unit; it does not mention side effects, required device state, error behavior, or whether the setting takes effect immediately.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a single parameter line. Every word earns its place and there is no 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 low-complexity setter with one required parameter, the description is mostly complete: it names the parameter and its unit. The only notable gap is the absence of any valid-range or operating-condition note, but this is not critical for such a simple tool.

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 so by explaining that 'level' is the trigger level in volts, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type 'number'. It lacks a valid range but is otherwise sufficient for a single simple numeric parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a precise resource ('trigger level') and a unit ('volts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling trigger tools like osc_set_trigger_mode, osc_set_trigger_source, and osc_set_trigger_slope. An agent can instantly tell what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its trigger-related siblings, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name, not explained.

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