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 useful context: 'Only specified parameters are changed' (partial updates), 'Parameter names match get_scope_state output for easy round-tripping' (compatibility), and 'Returns the resulting channel configuration' (output behavior). However, it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states the core action, followed by key behavioral notes and parameter details, ending with return information. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations.

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 (mutation with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a solid job. It covers purpose, partial update behavior, parameter semantics, and return value. However, it lacks error handling, prerequisites (e.g., device state), and doesn't fully explain all parameters (e.g., 'display' is only in schema). It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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% (4 out of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'channel: CHAN1–CHAN4' (clarifying range), 'scale_v_div: V/div' (units), 'offset_v: volts' (units), 'coupling: AC, DC, or GND' (options), and 'probe: attenuation ratio (1, 10, 100, …)' (examples). It compensates well for the schema's gaps, though not perfectly.

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: 'Configure a channel' with specific parameters like scale, offset, coupling, and probe. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_timebase' or 'set_trigger' by focusing on channel configuration rather than timebase or trigger settings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_cursors'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 some implied usage context: 'Only specified parameters are changed' and mentions round-tripping with 'get_scope_state'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'autoscale' or 'measure', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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