agilentdsox2012a_command

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the query flag's role and noting that writes are protected by the same unsafe-command policy as agilentdsox2012a_write_scpi. It also notes support for semicolon-separated queries. This is useful despite the annotations already indicating non-read-only 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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage details. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler.

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 generic SCPI command tool, the description covers the main aspects: command execution, query mode, and safety policy. It does not fully elaborate on the confirm_unsafe parameter or the exact return format, but the presence of an output schema and the reference to an existing policy make the description reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It explains the 'query' parameter ('Use query=true for read-only queries') and implies the meaning of 'confirm_unsafe' by referencing the unsafe-command policy, but it does not explicitly describe 'confirm_unsafe' or the exact syntax/format of the 'command' parameter.

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's purpose: 'Execute any SCPI command documented for the 2000 X-Series DSO-X 2012A.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling query/write tools by describing both read and write capabilities, noting that writes follow the same unsafe-command policy as agilentdsox2012a_write_scpi.

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 some usage context: 'Use query=true for read-only queries' and mentions an unsafe-command policy for writes. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the more specific query_scpi or write_scpi siblings, leaving the alternative selection to be inferred.

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