set_trigger

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It reports that the tool returns the resulting trigger configuration and warns against concurrent calls, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, reversibility, error handling, or required permissions. It is adequate but not exhaustive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes all necessary parameter details and a concurrency constraint without excess. It is efficient and well structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and concurrency. It could mention error behavior or prerequisites, but for this scope it is fairly complete. A 4 reflects that it is better than minimal but not exhaustive.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the source as 'CHAN1–CHAN4 or EXT,' while the schema only gives an example, and it explains the slope enum values (POS rising, NEG falling, RFAL either) which the schema lacks. This compensates for the moderate schema coverage (67%), so a 4 is warranted.

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's function as 'Configure edge trigger,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_channel, set_timebase, and set_cursors by focusing on edge trigger configuration. The parameter list further clarifies the scope.

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 implies usage when edge trigger configuration is needed, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. It does include a concurrency warning ('Do not call concurrently with any other rigol tool'), which is a usage constraint but not about tool selection. Thus, usage guidance is only implied.

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