Configure and start frequency sweeps on a signal generator by setting start/end Hz, duration, scale, and direction, then read back the applied sweep limits.
Switch to sweep mode, configure and read back limits. start=true starts the sweep. Output enable state is preserved; use set_outputs separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | LINEAR | |
| start | No | ||
| end_hz | Yes | ||
| time_s | Yes | ||
| channel | Yes | ||
| start_hz | Yes | ||
| direction | No | RISE |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the destructive, non-idempotent write profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context that output enable state is preserved and must be changed via set_outputs, but it never explains what the destructiveHint actually destroys or whether the sweep must be stopped first.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The 'read back limits' phrasing is slightly ambiguous but the structure is efficient.
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 7-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of most parameters and the concrete consequences of the destructive flag, leaving real gaps for an agent to call it safely.
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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only start (=true starts the sweep) and alludes to the frequency limits; scale, direction, time_s, and channel are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: switch to sweep mode, configure and read back limits. An agent can identify it as the sweep-configuration tool and distinguish it from set_mode/configure_channel. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it lands just below top marks.
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 gives one conditional usage rule (start=true starts the sweep) and routes output control to set_outputs. However, it never states when to prefer this over set_mode or configure_channel, so the guidance is partial and implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.