la_trigger

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that a read-only "get" operation exists alongside "set" — mild added context beyond the coarse annotation. It does not say whether trigger settings persist across captures, what mode="off" does, or how set interacts with an in-progress capture.

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; nothing is padded. The examples earn their space by showing required parameter combos, though the header formatting is slightly heavier than the content warrants.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what operation="get" returns, and it does not. It also omits how level relates to pattern (edge vs level triggering) and any persistence semantics, leaving real gaps for a 5-parameter hardware tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including enum values for mode and pattern. The examples show a realistic parameter combination (channel, pattern, mode), adding marginal practical value but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: "Configure digital trigger source and pattern." An agent immediately knows this manipulates logic-analyzer trigger settings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like la_configure or la_capture, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 worked examples implicitly show when to use set vs get, which is useful, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over la_configure or la_capture. Usage is demonstrated rather than explained.

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