probe_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context about disk space management and clarifies mode semantics ('pause', 'start', 'check'). However, it omits safety details like whether changes are persistent, if operations are idempotent, or potential error conditions—critical gaps for a control tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Efficient three-paragraph structure: purpose statement, usage context, then Args documentation. Every sentence delivers value—no generic filler. The Args block uses standard formatting that parses clearly despite being free text.

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?

Appropriate for a 2-parameter control tool. Given that an output schema exists, the description correctly omits return value speculation. Parameters are fully documented. Minor gap: could mention prerequisite simulator connection (given 'connect_simulator' sibling), but functional completeness is high.

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%, requiring full compensation. The Args section documents both parameters comprehensively: mode enumerates valid values ('enable', 'disable', 'status') with semantic mapping, and scope provides hierarchical syntax example ('top.hw.u_ext') plus default behavior ('Empty = all probes'). Fully compensates for schema deficiencies.

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?

Description opens with specific verb ('Control') + resource ('SHM waveform recording') + explicit purpose ('manage dump file size'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like waveform_add_signals or take_waveform_screenshot by focusing on recording enablement/disablement rather than signal selection or visualization.

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?

Provides clear temporal guidance: 'Disable probes during uninteresting simulation periods' and 'Re-enable before the region of interest.' Indicates scope parameter is optional. Lacks explicit 'use X instead for Y' alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete.

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