la_configure

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether configuration persists across captures, whether it resets prior settings, whether a device must be connected, or how operations interact.

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?

One short purpose sentence followed by two compact examples, front-loaded with zero filler. The examples earn their place by showing concrete argument shapes, though the example block could have covered all four operations at the same cost.

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 4-parameter config tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It never explains the get operation's return use, the simulator_pattern workflow, or how the configuration operations relate to the capture/decode siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents pattern, channels, operation, and sample_rate_hz. The examples show call syntax for two operations, which is mildly useful, but the get and simulator_pattern operations and the required-ness of operation vs. its arguments are not explained beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Configure) and resource (logic analyzer channels and sample rate), so the agent knows what domain this tool owns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like la_capture or la_trigger, which is the only gap.

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 two examples demonstrate channel and sample-rate configuration, implicitly showing when to use those operations. However, two of the four enum operations (get, simulator_pattern) and the pattern parameter get no guidance, and there is no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing.

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