send_raw_scpi

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

It discloses a useful behavioral trait: commands ending with '?' return a response, implying non-query commands may not. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention that arbitrary commands can have side effects, risk device state changes, or produce errors/timeouts.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clearly structured Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The essential parameter values and the query-response convention are covered, and an output schema likely handles return-value documentation. Still, for a tool with no annotations, it lacks guidance on when to prefer it over siblings and does not warn about the potential consequences of sending arbitrary SCPI commands.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block adds crucial meaning: it enumerates the valid device keys ('arb', 'dmm', 'osc', 'psu') and explains that command is the raw SCPI string. It could go further with format examples or syntax caveats, but it compensates well for the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: sending an arbitrary SCPI command to a device, with a clear note about query commands returning responses. The word 'arbitrary' and 'raw' signal a low-level escape hatch, distinguishing it from the many high-level sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many specific sibling tools such as dmm_read or osc_set_timebase. The phrase 'arbitrary SCPI command' implies it is a fallback, but there is no clear 'use only when no dedicated tool exists' instruction.

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