set_wave_analog

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals multiple silent pitfalls: bare 'ANALOG' isn't rendered, get_waves doesn't match full paths, set_wave_prop silently succeeds on empty objects, min/max must be paired, and no Tcl readback is possible. These are crucial behaviors beyond what schema or annotations could provide.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured with bullet points and warnings. Every sentence adds local knowledge or constraints that cannot be derived from schema. It front-loads the core purpose and separates pitfalls, ordering, and parameters logically. No redundant or vague sentences.

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 six-parameter tool with high complexity and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: ordering constraints, parameter semantics, silent failure modes, and verification limitations. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration, but the description still addresses verification by saying 'render please confirm visually'. It is fully complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the description compensates completely. Each parameter is given meaningful semantics: signals can be short/full paths and must be added; min/max must be explicitly supplied in pairs; interp is whitelisted; height corresponds to CellHeight in wcfg; session_id targets a session. This exceeds schema's bare type definitions.

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 signals to Analog waveform display in Vivado, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_wave_zoom by focusing on analog properties rather than zoom. The added context about resolved signal names and rendering makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states the hard ordering constraint ('must be called after set_wave_zoom') and explains why, along with prerequisite signals must be added. It also notes when automatic amplitude calculation is not supported. This gives clear when-to-use context, plus a reference to a sibling tool, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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