set_cursors

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns resulting cursor readouts and warns not to call it concurrently with any other rigol tool, which are useful disclosures. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the scope state is permanently changed), error conditions, or what happens if invalid mode values are provided. The return format is also vague ('resulting cursor readouts').

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action, explains modes inline, and includes a critical concurrency constraint. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it does, how modes behave, that it returns readouts, and a concurrency restriction. It does not cover error handling or the exact structure of the returned readouts, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools for reading, the description is largely complete. A minor gap is not linking to get_cursor_values for reading.

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 67%, and the description adds significant meaning for the mode parameter by explaining what each mode (OFF, MANUAL, TRACK) does, which goes beyond the enum. For ax/bx, the description clarifies they are time positions in seconds, though the schema already states this. The phrase 'and/or' and the note about omitting mode add practical usage semantics not in the schema.

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 sets cursor mode and/or X positions, using a specific verb (set) and resource (cursors). It explains the three modes in detail, distinguishing this from get_cursor_values which reads values rather than sets them. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explains the modes and that omitting mode keeps the current mode, which gives some context on when to use each option. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like get_cursor_values or measure, nor does it state conditions for when this tool is preferred over others. The concurrency warning is a usage constraint but not a tool-selection guideline.

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