get_waveform_tcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about capture_mode behavior (skips WFSU, reads WF? DAT2, requires stopped frame) and warns that configured mode is only for stable/repetitive signals. However, it does not disclose side effects of restore_trmd, file overwrites, or other potential mutations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Both sentences add value, but the second sentence is dense with technical jargon (WFSU, WF? DAT2) that could be clearer for an AI agent. Still, no wasted words.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It explains capture_mode but leaves the rest of the parameter semantics, prerequisites beyond a stopped frame, and any side effects unaddressed, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 explain parameters. It only explains capture_mode and its two values; the other five parameters (channel, csv_path, max_points, restore_trmd, metadata_path) are left entirely undescribed. This provides minimal compensation for the high coverage 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?

The description states a specific action ('Download waveform data and save CSV') with a clear resource and output format. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on downloading/saving rather than configuring or measuring, though it doesn't explicitly compare with auto_find_waveform_tcp.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description only provides usage guidance for the capture_mode parameter (immediate vs. configured), not for tool selection, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations needed for a 3.

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