scpi_command

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

The description discloses that no response is expected, which is important behavioral info not present in annotations. Annotations indicate it's not read-only, so the description adds value by clarifying the fire-and-forget nature.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and behavior, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 the complexity and sibling tools, the description fully explains the tool's role as a fallback. No output schema, but that's consistent with the no-response behavior. Complete for an escape hatch tool.

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 100% with a detailed description of the 'command' parameter including examples. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: sending arbitrary SCPI commands with no response expected. It distinguishes itself from 'scpi_query' which expects a response, and from other specific tools like 'configure_channel'.

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 explicitly frames the tool as an 'escape hatch' for commands not covered by other tools, providing clear guidance on when to use it and implying when not to (use other tools for covered commands).

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