sync_afg_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the re-application of preset frequency/phase, the dual-channel effect, the condition for visible effect, the lack of impact on amplitude/output state, that no confirmation is needed, and the SCPI prefix routing nuance. This is thoroughly 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 compact and efficiently front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds meaningful behavioral or conditional detail without fluff or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains purpose, behavior, side effects, parameter semantics, and the conditions under which the operation matters. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The schema provides only a bare integer 'channel' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'channel selects which channel's SCPI prefix issues the command, but both generator channels are affected.' This prevents a critical misunderstanding. It could still be more explicit about valid channel values, but the default in the schema covers one 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 opening sentence states a specific action: 'Align the phase of both function generator channels to their preset settings.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like configure_afg or get_afg_state by focusing on a dedicated sync operation that affects both channels.

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 on when the action has a visible effect: only when channel frequencies are identical or integer multiples. It also clarifies that amplitude and output state are untouched, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, losing the fifth point.

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