cursor_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but fails to disclose whether this creates a new cursor if the name doesn't exist versus moving an existing one, error conditions, or persistence behavior across simulation restarts.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement followed by an Args block. While the Args format is slightly technical, it efficiently conveys parameter semantics without redundancy given the empty schema descriptions.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return value documentation is unnecessary. However, for a state-mutating operation, the description lacks context on cursor lifecycle (creation vs. update) and interaction with the waveform viewer state.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting both parameters: it provides a concrete format example for `time` ('50ns') and explicitly states the default value for `cursor_name` ('TimeA').

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 states the verb (set), resource (waveform cursor), and scope (specific time). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `waveform_zoom` or `sim_run` by specifying the cursor manipulation domain, though it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `waveform_zoom` or signal probes. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., whether a waveform viewer must be active) and exclusion criteria.

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