configure_histogram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the acquisition is untouched, no output is driven, omitted items remain unchanged, values may snap, reset is applied after settings, and bound-checking has host-side versus instrument-side behavior.

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 structured in clear, purposeful sections: overview, parameter details, constraints, reset behavior, and caveats. Each sentence adds meaningful information without filler, and important call-order and value-snapping details are front-loaded in context.

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 nine-parameter configuration tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is exceptionally complete, covering side effects, constraints, and read-back trust. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'enabled' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 does for type, source, height, left_s, right_s, bottom_v, top_v, and reset, including constraints and semantics. However, the 'enabled' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of nine parameters unexplained in both schema and description.

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 the waveform histogram and contrasts it with reading statistics via get_histogram_result. It names the specific resource and operation, making it unambiguous alongside sibling configure_* tools.

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 provides clear context: use this to change histogram settings, and read the resulting statistics with get_histogram_result. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, but the configuration-vs-read separation is evident enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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