m8811_query_scpi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a valuable behavioral disclosure that *IDN? serial data is redacted, which is not inferable from the schema or annotations. This exceeds the baseline but omits other potential behaviors like error handling.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends a critical caveat about redaction. Extremely efficient—every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 query tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key output behavior. It omits connection prerequisites or exact response format, but the output schema likely covers return values, making this adequate overall.

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 has zero description for the 'command' parameter, so the description must compensate. It merely states the command should be a query from the manual, providing no syntax, formatting, or examples. This minimal guidance is insufficient for a parameter that carries the entire operation.

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 identifies the tool as running SCPI query commands from the M88 manual, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from write_scpi via the 'query' scope and the redaction note adds uniqueness, but 'any query' is slightly broad and doesn't explicitly differentiate from other query_scpi tools for different instruments.

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 'documented in the M88 manual' qualifier implies users should restrict to manual commands, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like m8811_measure or m8811_write_scpi. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage context is only implicit.

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