set_timebase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the trigger zero-crossing behavior, the time_start/time_end calculation, the return value, parameter-name round-tripping with get_scope_state, and a concurrency restriction. This is rich, non-obvious 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, parameter semantics, formulas, alignment examples, round-tripping note, return behavior, and concurrency warning. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how parameters interact, what the return value is, and a critical concurrency constraint. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: exact formulas, an example value, alignment procedures, and the relationship to get_scope_state. This makes the parameters far more actionable than their bare schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the horizontal timebase.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_trigger, set_channel, and set_cursors by focusing on the timebase axis. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides detailed how-to guidance for alignment scenarios (right edge, left edge), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings such as set_trigger or autoscale. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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