auto_setup_tcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the waveform is left visible by default, a useful trait, but it does not explain what 'auto setup' actually does (e.g., which settings are changed, whether acquisition starts, or side effects). This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key behavioral detail. It is appropriately sized and avoids wasted words, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (8 optional parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions), the description provides only a high-level summary. It lacks any contextual framing around the parameters, expected outcomes, or environment prerequisites. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanation, but the core setup behavior remains under-specified.

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 must compensate. It only mentions 'channel' generically, which maps to the channel parameter, but fails to explain any of the 8 parameters (probe, settle_s, signal_hint, etc.) or their defaults. The description adds almost no value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Auto setup one channel' with a specific behavior 'leave the waveform visible by default.' This provides a clear verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like auto_find_waveform_tcp or configure_channel_tcp, but the phrase 'one channel' and 'visible by default' gives it a distinct identity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The purpose is implied but no contextual direction is provided, making this a 'no guidance' case.

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