afg2125_write_scpi

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

The description reveals that APPLy, OUTPut, and destructive commands are guarded, which adds safety context beyond the annotations (all false). This helps the agent understand that these commands require extra care, likely via confirm_unsafe. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value.

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?

While the output schema may define return values, the description is too brief to cover critical behavior: the exact meaning of 'guarded', the consequence of attempting a guarded command without confirmation, and the expected command format. For a low-level SCPI tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only indirectly references the confirm_unsafe parameter by saying certain commands are guarded. It doesn't explicitly explain that confirm_unsafe must be set to true for guarded commands, nor does it describe the command parameter format.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'setting command', which distinguishes it from query_scpi. However, 'setting command' is somewhat vague and doesn't specify what types of SCPI commands are accepted beyond implying configuration commands.

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 implies the tool is for sending SCPI setting commands, but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with query_scpi or the high-level setter functions. The mention of guards hints at special treatment for certain commands but no when-to-use guidance.

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