get_waveform

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the trace is limited to 1200 on-screen points, a CSV file is written to disk (a real side effect), and the `clipped` flag warns that extremes are unreliable when the trace runs off screen.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it returns, the clipping caveat, the parameter format), front-loaded with the core action. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return (summary stats plus CSV path) and the units (time_s, volts). Combined with the clipping caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: it documents the accepted channel formats (1-4 or CHAN1-CHAN4). For the single required parameter this fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 (read one channel's on-screen trace) with concrete scope (1200 points, CSV output, summary stats). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like measure, screenshot, or scpi_query.

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?

Usage is implied by describing the output and the cached-trace model, but it never says when to prefer this over `measure` (numeric measurements) or `screenshot` (image capture), which are the closest alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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