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: queries return response strings, writes return empty strings, and writes auto-check the error queue. It doesn't mention error handling for malformed commands or rate limits, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence explains the core functionality and behavior, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. There is zero wasted text or 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 (low-level SCPI interface), single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the different behaviors for queries vs. writes. The main gap is lack of output format details for queries, but this is reasonable for an 'escape hatch' tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by providing example commands (':CHAN1:SCAL?' and ':CHAN1:DISP ON') that illustrate the parameter's purpose, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('send an arbitrary SCPI command') and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as an 'escape hatch when no dedicated tool covers the operation.' It explicitly identifies the resource (SCPI commands) and differentiates from other tools like set_channel or measure.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('when no dedicated tool covers the operation') and when not to use it (implied: use dedicated tools when available). It also distinguishes between query and write operations, offering clear context for usage decisions.

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