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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, implying it is non-destructive, but does not cover other traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The mention of 'AX_s and BX_s are time positions in seconds' adds some context about output format, but overall, behavioral information is minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and provide additional context. There is no wasted text, and each sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and provides some output details, but lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling or usage context. For a read-only tool with no annotations, it could be more comprehensive to fully guide the agent.

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 has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it adds value by explaining output semantics ('AX_s and BX_s are time positions in seconds'), which is beyond the empty input schema. This meets the baseline for 0 parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Read current cursor mode and all cursor readouts.' This specifies the verb ('Read') and the resource ('cursor mode and all cursor readouts'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_cursors' or 'measure_between', which might involve cursor operations, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'get_cursor_values' over 'measure' or 'get_scope_state' for cursor-related data. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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