configure_math

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive to acquisition, that omitted items are left unchanged, that the instrument enforces parameter validity, that rejected writes are reported as errors, and that the device may snap values so read-back should be trusted. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but every section earns its place given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the one-line summary and partial-update behavior, then organizes parameter details into clear paragraphs. The structure makes dense information navigable.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is remarkably complete: it covers behavior, valid parameter combinations, error handling, read-back paths, trace fetching, and value snapping. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'display' parameter and the lack of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does extensively: operator enum values, source and lsource constraints, scale/offset/invert semantics, and detailed fft and filter subfields. However, the 'display' parameter from the schema is never mentioned, leaving one parameter unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Configure a math (waveform arithmetic) trace.' It further differentiates itself from acquisition tools by explaining that it computes a new trace from channels already being acquired, changes nothing about the acquisition, and drives no output. This makes it clearly distinguishable from configure_channel and configure_trigger.

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 clear usage context: it operates on channels already being acquired, requires at least one item to be specified, and tells the agent to read results back with get_math_state and fetch traces with capture_waveform. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead of Y', but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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