scope_trigger

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions configure/inspect and gives a return format, but it does not explain the behavioral effects of arm or force operations, which are not covered by the phrase 'configure and inspect.' The risk of mutating oscilloscope trigger state is not clarified.

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 short and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, the return format, and two representative examples. There is no filler or repetition of schema content. It is well organized and every section earns its place.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with four operation modes, but the description only covers set and get in examples, leaving arm and force semantically undefined. There is no mention of behavior with null parameters, channel validity, or interaction with scope_capture/scope_configure. The return format helps, but the missing operation semantics make the definition incomplete for correct invocation across all valid inputs.

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 baseline is 3. The examples add value beyond the schema by showing that operation='get' can be called without the optional parameters while operation='set' uses threshold_v, mode, edge, and source_channel together. This gives the agent a concrete model of how the parameters combine, which the enum descriptions alone do not convey.

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 opens with a specific action-and-resource pair: 'Configure and inspect oscilloscope trigger settings.' This clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from capture/measure/device siblings by the 'trigger' keyword. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling scope_configure, and 'configure' overlaps with that tool's likely purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over scope_configure or other siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The examples illustrate set and get calls but do not explain when arm or force should be used or when a different scope tool would be more appropriate. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'trigger.'

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