auto_find_waveform_tcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'entry point' and provides no information about side effects, performance implications, waveform finding behavior, or what the user should expect. This is a critical gap.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no useful content. This is an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 complex tool with 11 optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the auto setup process, the meaning of 'backwards-compatible', return values, or parameter semantics. The tool cannot be used safely or correctly with this description alone.

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?

The description provides no parameter information at all. With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no way to understand the meaning of 'probe', 'channels', 'signal_hint', or any other parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Backwards-compatible multi-channel auto setup entry point' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish itself from sibling tool auto_setup_tcp which likely serves a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auto_setup_tcp or capture_uart_auto_tcp. The phrase 'backwards-compatible' implies legacy usage, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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