set_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a partial configuration, returns the resulting channel configuration, and must not be called concurrently with other rigol tools. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 dense and well organized: a one-line summary, a key semantic guarantee, a compact parameter reference, a round-tripping note, and a concurrency warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundant prose.

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 6-parameter configuration tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential operational context: units, allowed values, partial update behavior, return information, and concurrency constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though output shape is left unspecified.

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 67%, and the description adds value by providing units (V/div, volts), coupling enum values (AC, DC, GND), and probe attenuation examples (1, 10, 100). It compensates for the schema's undocumented channel and coupling properties while reinforcing the round-tripping intent.

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 tool configures a channel and enumerates the specific settable fields (scale_v_div, offset_v, coupling, probe). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_timebase and set_trigger, which operate on different scope subsystems.

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 phrase 'Only specified parameters are changed' clarifies partial-update semantics, and 'Parameter names match get_scope_state output for easy round-tripping' gives a clear usage pattern. The concurrency warning adds an important operational constraint, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool.

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