osc_single

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the state change (sets the oscilloscope to single-trigger mode), but adds no extra behavioral context such as acquisition arming, interaction with osc_run, or side effects. This is minimally adequate for a no-argument setter, but not rich.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 zero-argument tool with no required inputs, the description is essentially complete for invoking it correctly. The main gap is not explaining how it relates to osc_set_trigger_mode, but that is more of a usage-guidance issue than a completeness issue.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parametric meaning to add. This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 clear action ('Set') on a specific instrument ('the oscilloscope') with a concrete target state ('single-trigger mode'). It is not vague, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling osc_set_trigger_mode.

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 text gives no guidance about when to call this tool rather than siblings such as osc_set_trigger_mode or osc_force_trigger. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided; the only implied cue is the phrase 'single-trigger mode'.

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