osc_set_trigger_slope

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. It states that the tool sets the trigger slope and explains the POS/NEG value semantics, but it does not disclose whether existing settings are overwritten, whether the change is immediate or persistent, what prerequisites apply, or what happens on unsupported values.

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 concise and well-structured: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact args block. Every line contributes useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter setter with an output schema, this is largely complete for correct invocation: the target resource, the action, and the accepted value semantics are all present. The main gaps are the lack of alternatives/usage context and limited detail on post-call behavior, but these are not blocking for the tool's core purpose.

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 provides only a string property with no description, enum, or constraints, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It fully documents the only required parameter by mapping 'POS' to rising edge and 'NEG' to falling edge, which is exactly the information an agent needs.

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 opens with 'Set the trigger slope on the oscilloscope,' naming a specific action, target instrument, and resource. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose, and the term 'slope' distinguishes it from sibling trigger tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with 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 sibling tools like osc_set_trigger_mode, osc_set_trigger_source, or osc_set_trigger_level. The only usage-related content is the mapping of slope values to edge directions, which addresses parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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