scope_wavesource_configure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that all parameters are optional and only provided ones are applied, and notes transport (VBS). It does not mention idempotency or error cases, but provides reasonable transparency.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points for Args and Transport, front-loading the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but it is clear and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (assumed to document return values), the description covers parameter details, constraints, and prerequisites comprehensively. No obvious gaps.

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 the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's meaning, constraints (e.g., shape values, duty_cycle only for Square/Pulse), and units. It does not specify defaults beyond null, but adds significant value.

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 it configures the WaveSource built-in generator in a single call, and distinguishes from sibling tools like scope_wavesource_enable and scope_wavesource_info. It includes specific details about model availability and shape options.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisites (check scope_capabilities, has_wavesource=True) and provides guidance on shape alternatives (e.g., sawtooth via Triangle with symmetry). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools.

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