capture_oscilloscope

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses side effects and limits that an agent cannot derive from the schema: it clears the old oscilloscope buffer, matching destructiveHint=true; sends a stop at the end; exports raw and scaled CSV; has no device timestamp; and cannot guarantee zero dropped points. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive acquisition.

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 action is front-loaded and nearly every clause adds distinct information: trigger, period constraint, buffer clearing, export, and caveats. The semicolon-separated structure is dense but readable, with little wasted wording.

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 destructive, hardware-triggering tool, the definition covers when it runs, the constraints on the parameters, the side effects, and the non-goal; an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The missing pieces are how an agent obtains the channel codes and whether transport or port choice matters, both minor against the content present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does so for the key parameters: codes holds 1-4 channels, sample_period_ms must be an integer multiple of 2 ms, and points has a 20000-point/40-second cap. port and transport, including the transport enum, are never mentioned, so one required gap remains.

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 names a specific verb and resource, 'execute E1/E2 continuous oscilloscope acquisition', and states that it triggers immediately, which is more precise than a restatement of the name. Its only weakness is the unexplained jargon 'P channels', which an agent must infer from the codes parameter or from the list_oscilloscope_channels tool.

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?

It gives a clear precondition, 'after the user selects 1-4 P channels', and states a non-goal, 'does not control motor', which routes the agent away from the drive tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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