rigol-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets cursor modes and positions and returns readouts, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. It efficiently explains parameter behavior and the return value in two sentences. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, response format details beyond 'readouts', or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure reliable 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 67%, with 'ax' and 'bx' documented in the schema but 'mode' lacking a description. The description adds value by explaining that 'mode' can be omitted to keep current and lists the enum values, partially compensating for the coverage gap. However, it doesn't fully clarify the semantics of 'ax' and 'bx' beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Set cursor mode and/or X positions.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('cursor mode and/or X positions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cursor_values' or 'measure_between', which might involve cursor operations, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions that parameters can be omitted to keep current values, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_cursor_values' for reading cursor data, leaving usage unclear.

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