configure_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it excels. It discloses irreversibility of save=true, no undo, no way to check before overwriting, reset ordering, label_display being a global switch, and that the firmware accepts non-displayed sources despite the programming guide. It also notes the device may snap values and that applied should be trusted. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense and well-organized, with each paragraph covering a coherent aspect: slot semantics, source, display settings, global switch, save/reset behavior, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core concept and safety-relevant warnings. A small amount of trimming could improve brevity, but every sentence carries meaningful information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves little unknown. It explains operation ordering, irreversibility, global side effects, read-back via get_reference_state, and even covers limitations (cannot be downloaded) with a numeric comparison alternative. The agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define all parameters itself, and it does. It explains ref (slot 1-10), source ('CH1'-'CH4', 'MATH1'-'MATH4', 'D0'-'D15'), scale and offset_v (vertical scale/offset of stored trace), color and label (with allowed characters), label_display (global switch), save (stores source waveform, sent last), and reset (restores defaults, sent first). No parameter is left undefined.

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 configures a reference waveform slot, defines what a reference waveform is (a stored trace drawn over the live one), and distinguishes it from simple capture or math operations. The scope is explicit: it only changes display/computation, not acquisition or output. This fully separates it from sibling 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not to, pointing to alternatives: use get_reference_state to read back, use configure_math with subtract and capture_waveform for host-side numerical comparison. It also gives operational conditions such as 'Specify at least one item to change' and warns to ask the human before overwriting a slot. This is exemplary routing and usage context.

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