download_waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: mode-dependent read locations, the prerequisite on the source, and the side-effect caveat 'Transfer settings are not restored; acquisition is unchanged.' It could add file-overwrite behavior, but it provides solid transparency for a save operation.

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 four short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct useful information: mode behavior, source precondition, and side-effect caveat.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core invocation context: stopped state, mode selection, source requirement, return artifacts, and non-restoration of transfer settings. The remaining gap is the semantics of start/points/chunk_points, though start and points are partially described in the schema.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains mode semantics and the source requirement, but it leaves start, points, and chunk_points semantically unexplained beyond the schema. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 leads with a concrete verb and resource: 'Save a stopped DHO814 acquisition as time/value CSV; return path and timing.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling get_waveform by emphasizing file output and returned artifacts rather than in-memory retrieval.

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?

It explicitly states when the tool applies ('stopped' acquisition), gives mode guidance ('RAW/MAX read memory; NORM reads screen (required for math)'), and notes a prerequisite ('Analog source must be enabled with data'). It does not explicitly contrast with get_waveform or list when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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