osc_set_trigger_mode

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the trigger mode is set, without saying what effect each mode has on acquisition, whether a running acquisition is stopped or reset, or whether any prerequisites apply. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two tight units: a one-line purpose statement followed by the parameter detail. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded before the Args section.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema present, the basic call shape is minimally represented, but the description omits behavior and sequencing context, such as whether STOP halts the current acquisition or whether SINGLE requires an arming step. An agent cannot tell from this description how best to use the tool among the many oscilloscope-trigger-related siblings.

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 defines 'mode' only as a plain required string, so the description adds real value by enumerating the four allowed values: AUTO, NORM, SINGLE, STOP. However, it does not explain the meaning or behavior of each mode, so it only partially compensates for 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 clearly names the action ('Set'), the resource ('oscilloscope'), and the target ('trigger mode'), and it lists the valid mode values. It distinguishes itself from trigger-source/level/slope siblings by the word 'mode', though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as osc_set_trigger_source, osc_force_trigger, or osc_single. The mode enumeration hints at configuration intent but does not explain contextual situations like when to choose SINGLE over STOP or AUTO.

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