rigol-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the operation 'takes a few seconds' (indicating latency) and that the resulting configuration is not immediately visible (requiring a follow-up call to 'get_scope_state'). This goes beyond the basic action, though it could mention more about potential side effects or errors.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by important behavioral notes, all in two efficient sentences with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical 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?

Given the tool's complexity (an auto-setup operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool does, its duration, and the need to check results. However, it could be more comprehensive by mentioning potential failure modes or what 'auto-setup' entails in more detail, preventing a perfect score.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on behavior and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since it handles the zero-parameter case well without unnecessary details.

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 clearly states the action ('run the scope's auto-setup') and specifies what it configures ('timebase, vertical scale, trigger'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'set_timebase' or 'set_trigger', which handle manual configuration of those same components, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating 'Takes a few seconds' and instructing to 'call get_scope_state afterwards to see the resulting configuration,' which guides when to use it (after running, to check results). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., manual setup tools), so it's not a full 5.

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