scope_save_waveform_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses file path ('waveforms/' subfolder), auto-generated filename, CSV format, metadata lines, transport protocol (SCPI binary), and return value (full path). Minor omission: no mention of potential overwrite (though timestamps prevent clashes) or acquisition delay.

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?

Description is well-structured, front-loading purpose then file details, CSV format, example, args, and transport. Slightly verbose with transport line, but each part adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, file location, format, example usage, and parameter details. Missing minor context like handling of large data or acquisition state, but sufficient for typical use.

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 0%, so description compensates. It explains channel range (1–4) and max_points default (10000) with semantics 'Maximum samples to save'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title.

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 captures a waveform and saves it as a timestamped CSV file for post-processing. It specifies the file location, naming convention, and CSV structure with two columns. This distinguishes it from siblings like scope_get_waveform or scope_store_waveform.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or state when to use it vs. alternatives. It implies usage for post-processing (e.g., pandas), but lacks guidance on exclusions or when other tools like scope_get_waveform might be more appropriate.

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