Run the instrument self-test (*TST?). Returns 0 for pass or 1 for failure, prompting you to check errors.
Run instrument self-test (*TST?). 0 = pass, 1 = failure (check errors).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the outcome codes (0 = pass, 1 = failure), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the self-test blocks, how long it takes, or whether it disturbs active acquisition — meaningful traits for an instrument self-test.
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 short clauses with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the result-code semantics follow immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose and pass/fail codes adequately. The only gap is runtime/blocking behavior and the diagnostic follow-up path, which are minor for this tool's complexity.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information the description could add, and it correctly omits any.
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 ('Run instrument self-test') and even includes the underlying SCPI mnemonic (*TST?). No sibling in the list performs a self-test, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from get_status, get_errors, or get_idn.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the '(check errors)' note hints that a failure result should route the agent to get_errors. There is no explicit statement of when to run this versus the other diagnostic siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.