configure_channel_tcp

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It fails to mention side effects on the device, need for an established TCP connection, or what 'candidate commands' means. The mutation of channel settings is implied but not detailed.

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 concise sentence with no redundant information. However, the phrase 'candidate commands' is vague and could be considered padding, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, no annotations), the one-line description is severely inadequate. It omits prerequisites (e.g., active TCP connection), parameter details, and expected behavior, making it nearly useless for an agent to invoke 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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. Parameter titles like 'Vdiv' and 'probe' are self-explanatory but units, ranges, and string formats are absent. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the tool as configuring a channel via TCP, distinguishing it from get_channel_tcp (read) and configure_acquisition_tcp. However, the phrase 'SDS-style TCP SCPI candidate commands' introduces jargon and ambiguity, preventing a perfect score.

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 the many sibling tools (connect_tcp, get_channel_tcp, configure_acquisition_tcp). The context is implied but not explicit, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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