autoscale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the side effects (changes timebase, vertical scale, trigger), the expected duration, the concurrency constraint, and how to observe the result. This is rich behavioral context.

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 sentences deliver the core action, the side-effect scope, timing, post-step, and a concurrency constraint without any redundancy. Every sentence earns its place and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what will happen, how long it takes, how to inspect the result, and the one critical operational warning. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Run the scope's auto-setup') and enumerates exactly what the auto-setup covers: timebase, vertical scale, and trigger. This clearly distinguishes it from manual siblings like set_timebase and set_trigger.

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 gives clear operational guidance: it takes a few seconds, you should call get_scope_state afterwards, and you must not call it concurrently with any other rigol tool. It does not explicitly contrast with manual setup alternatives, 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.