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 critical behaviors: the requirement to stop acquisition for stable readings, the meaning of the invalid/overflow sentinel value (9.9E37), and troubleshooting advice for specific cases like FREQUENCY errors. It does not cover all possible edge cases or error conditions, but provides substantial operational guidance.

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. The list of items is necessary for clarity, and the explanation of the sentinel value and alternative tool usage adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient and informative.

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 (measurement operations with potential errors) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and key behavioral aspects like the sentinel value and acquisition requirement. It does not detail the return format or all error scenarios, but provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 'item' has a description), but the description compensates well. It explains the 'channel' parameter range (CHAN1–CHAN4) and provides a comprehensive list of valid 'item' values with examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's enum and basic description. The description effectively clarifies parameter usage and constraints.

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 specific action ('Query a single-source built-in measurement') and resource ('on a channel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'measure_between' for two-channel measurements. It provides a comprehensive list of measurable items, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Query a single-source built-in measurement') and when not to ('For delay or phase between two channels use measure_between'). It also provides prerequisites ('Stop acquisition first for stable readings') and troubleshooting guidance for invalid results, offering clear alternatives and context.

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