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. It effectively discloses that this is a configuration/mutation tool (implied by 'Set'), explains the mathematical relationship between parameters and display window, and describes the return value. It doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides essential formulas and practical examples, and concludes with integration notes and return information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose in helping an agent understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

For a 2-parameter configuration tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. It explains the mathematical model and practical usage patterns thoroughly. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or validation constraints information.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the practical meaning of parameters with formulas (time_start = offset_s − 6×scale_s_div), provides usage examples for alignment scenarios, and clarifies the relationship to trigger positioning. This transforms abstract parameter definitions into actionable guidance.

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 ('Set the horizontal timebase') and resource ('timebase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_channel or set_trigger. It provides a precise technical definition of what the tool does, going beyond a simple verb-noun pairing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to configure timebase parameters) and mentions alignment with get_scope_state output for round-tripping. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like autoscale.

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