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 effectively describes key behaviors: it requires stopping/single-triggering the scope first, returns either text analysis or raw JSON arrays based on a parameter, includes data-quality warnings, and provides actionable advice for handling specific warning cases like adjusting timebase or offset.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediate prerequisites. Each sentence adds value, such as explaining output options and post-analysis actions, with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating warning handling more succinctly.

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 (waveform analysis with warnings and raw data options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral aspects, but lacks details on exact output formats or error cases, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 50% (only raw_data has a description). The description adds significant value by explaining the channel parameter's purpose ('for a channel') and the raw_data parameter's effect ('returns a plain-text analysis... Set raw_data=true to get the full time/voltage JSON arrays'), compensating for the schema's lack of channel description and enriching raw_data context.

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 with specific verbs ('download and analyse') and resource ('current waveform for a channel'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_scope_state' or 'measure' by focusing on waveform data extraction and analysis rather than general scope information or measurements.

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 explicit usage guidance: it instructs to 'stop or single-trigger the scope first for consistent data,' specifies when to use raw_data=true for raw arrays versus default text analysis, and advises on post-processing actions based on warnings, offering clear alternatives and prerequisites.

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