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. It mentions the return value ('Returns the resulting trigger configuration'), which is helpful, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, or potential side effects like resetting other settings. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations and return value, all in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a configuration tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics and the return value, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a tool that likely interacts with hardware (oscilloscope), more detail on effects and constraints would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains the semantics of 'source' (CHAN1–CHAN4 or EXT), 'slope' (POS, NEG, RFAL with definitions), and 'level' (in volts), which complements the schema's 67% coverage (only 'source' and 'level' have descriptions). This compensates well for the schema's gaps, especially for 'slope' which lacks a description but is clarified in the tool description.

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 action ('Configure edge trigger') and specifies the resource ('edge trigger'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_channel or set_timebase. It provides specific details about what is being configured, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the scope must be in a certain state, or compare it to other trigger-related tools (none listed in siblings). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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