osc_set_trigger_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It clearly indicates this is a state-setting operation and identifies the affected setting, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites such as channel enablement, or error behavior. This is adequate but minimal.

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: one clear action sentence followed by a single argument definition. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 single-parameter setter with an output schema available, the description covers the essential information: the action, the affected instrument, and the valid channel values. It omits minor contextual details like prerequisites, but nothing critical is missing for a straightforward call.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'channel' means 'Channel number (1 or 2).' This adds a meaningful constraint that the schema itself does not provide, making the single required parameter unambiguous.

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 ('Set'), a specific resource ('trigger source channel'), and the instrument ('oscilloscope'). This distinguishes it from siblings like dmm_set_trigger_source and other trigger-related oscilloscope tools such as osc_set_trigger_mode, osc_set_trigger_level, and osc_set_trigger_slope.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. It only names the action; it does not explain when an agent should choose this over related trigger tools.

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