set_wave_zoom

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it modifies the wcfg XML and triggers a reload, it does not auto-save (avoiding unsolicited disk writes), it returns an error when wcfg is unsaved, and it discards unsaved live wave properties due to close -force. These side effects are explicitly warned, going beyond generic descriptions.

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 long but front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by rationale, warnings, and parameter details. Each section earns its place: the protocol explanation is necessary for correct usage, and the Args block is clear. Despite the length, it remains well-structured and scannable.

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 complexity (multi-step XML editing and reload protocol, multiple side effects, prerequisites), the description is remarkably complete. It covers error conditions, ordering with sibling tools, unsaved file handling, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, so no essential context is missing.

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 takes full responsibility for parameter documentation. It explains start_ns and end_ns (with the constraint start < end), wcfg (explicit path or auto-resolution), and session_id. This fully compensates for the empty 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 clearly states the tool's function: setting the waveform time zoom window. It explains the mechanism (modify wcfg XML then close -force + open reload), and distinguishes itself from sibling set_wave_analog by focusing on zoom rather than analog properties. The verb '设置' plus the specific resource '波形时间缩放窗口' is precise.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, including the prerequisite that the wcfg must be saved (error if not, requiring save_wave_config), and the ordering constraint to call set_wave_zoom before set_wave_analog. It also explains the pitfalls of the reload sequence (missing -force or opening an already-open wcfg). This is detailed operational guidance.

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