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 adds important context about the need to 'stop acquisition first for stable readings,' which reveals a critical operational constraint. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (numeric values? units?), error conditions, or performance characteristics like response time or rate limits. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. Three sentences each serve distinct purposes: (1) states the core function, (2) explains parameter roles and item meanings, (3) provides critical usage prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently delivers necessary information.

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 3 parameters with partial schema coverage (67%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has notable gaps. It explains parameter semantics well and provides a usage prerequisite, but doesn't describe return values (critical for a measurement tool), error handling, or system state requirements beyond the acquisition stop. For a measurement query tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about what to expect.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'source1 is the reference channel' and 'source2 is the measured channel,' clarifying the directional relationship. It also defines the 'item' enum values (RDELAY=rising-edge delay in seconds, etc.), which the schema lacks. This compensates well for the schema's gaps, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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: 'Query a two-source delay or phase measurement between two channels.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('measurement'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'measure' (general) or 'get_cursor_values' (cursor-based). The description provides specific measurement types (RDELAY, FDELAY, RPHASE, FPHASE), making it highly differentiated.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Stop acquisition first for stable readings.' This provides a clear prerequisite context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'measure' or 'get_cursor_values' for similar measurements, nor does it mention exclusion cases. The guidance is helpful but incomplete regarding sibling differentiation.

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