Suggest SCPI for an intent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'Optionally execute it' and the schema clarifies execute=true 'send[s] the commands' to the instrument, which mutates device state (set mV/div, trigger, reset). A tool that can drive hardware is not read-only, so the description contradicts the annotation. It otherwise adds the useful dialect-default rule ('Uses *IDN? dialect unless you pass dialect=').

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. Both the dialect rule and the 'prefer over inventing' guidance earn their space.

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 spelled out, and the dialect-dependent behavior is covered. Still, with 60% schema coverage the description leaves channel/resource semantics unexplained and, given the write capability behind execute=true, should say more about the consequences of the execute path.

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 60% and five params are present. The description adds real meaning for dialect (defaults to the *IDN? dialect unless overridden) and confirms the execute toggle, but channel and resource are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the semantics partly unaddressed. Baseline 3 for the partially-covered schema.

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 transformation: 'Map a natural-language intent to vendor-correct SCPI', plus the option to execute. An agent can tell this apart from write/query siblings (which take literal SCPI) without opening the schema. It stops short of naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Prefer this over inventing commands' gives one clear routing rule for the case where the agent lacks the exact command. However it never states when NOT to use it (e.g. when you already have literal SCPI, use write/query) and does not warn that execute=true actually sends commands to hardware. Usage is implied more than specified.

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