Oscilloscope measurements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that measurements come from the instrument's own measurement engine (device-side, not local math on a captured trace), which is modestly useful, but says nothing about latency, error behavior, or what happens if a kind is unsupported.

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 tight sentence with the essential value front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given four parameters and instrument-dialect concerns.

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, but with four parameters at 25% coverage, three undocumented parameters (channel, dialect, resource) and zero usage guidance, the description leaves real gaps for an agent to call this correctly against a multichannel scope.

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 only 25% — only 'kinds' is documented, listing the valid subset and the vpp+freq default. The description's 'Vpp, frequency, etc.' merely echoes that enum, adding nothing, while channel, dialect, and resource are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (ask/query), resource (the scope's measurement engine), and illustrative outputs (Vpp, frequency), so the agent knows this retrieves computed measurements rather than raw data. It does not name or contrast with siblings like scope_capture_waveform or scope_acquire, which makes it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says to prefer this over scope_capture_waveform/export_waveform when only scalar values are needed, nor any prerequisite (e.g., a session or channel must be open). The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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