Query binary SCPI block

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — the default return shape (stats plus short preview), the capping of arrays, the CSV side effect of save_path, and the protocol hazard that a terminator byte can appear inside the payload. None of this is derivable from the 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with default behavior before options and alternatives. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (default is a preview, not the data) comes first.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers default output, alternatives and the query() hazard. It falls short only on the undocumented parameters (max_return cap value, endianness, resource), which would matter for a tool with 8 params.

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 50%, and the description elaborates only save_path (keeps the full record, written as CSV), return_values (capped array) and the preview concept. Four parameters — resource, max_return, is_big_endian, preview_points — carry no meaning in either the description or the schema titles, so the description partly compensates but leaves real gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an IEEE binary block') and immediately frames the tool against its nearest sibling by warning that query() is unsafe for binary payloads. An agent can distinguish it from query, scope_capture_waveform and export_waveform without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: default behavior, save_path= for the full record, return_values=true for a capped array, and two named alternatives for oscilloscope traces. It also names the anti-pattern ('Do not use query() for binary') with the reason, which is exactly the exclusion guidance most descriptions lack.

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