Capture a screenshot from a connected Keysight or Agilent oscilloscope by providing its device ID, returning the display image.
Capture screenshot from a Keysight/Agilent oscilloscope.
Args: params (DeviceIdInput): Input containing: - device_id (int): The unique identifier returned by usbtmc_connect()
Returns: Image
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the return type (Image) but lacks details on error behavior, prerequisites beyond device_id, or any side effects. It does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place 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 read-only tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which vendor it supports, the required parameter, and the return type. It does not cover error conditions or image format, but the low complexity and strong annotations make this acceptable.
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?
Despite the 0% schema description coverage signal, the description explicitly documents device_id and its source (usbtmc_connect()), which compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions. It provides clear meaning and provenance for the only 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 action (capture screenshot) and the resource (Keysight/Agilent oscilloscope), which distinguishes it from the Tektronix sibling tool. The vendor-specific naming removes ambiguity about which device family it applies to.
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 usage for Keysight/Agilent devices but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus the Tektronix sibling or provide exclusions. The context is present but not spelled out, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.