rigol-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's effect (stops acquisition, freezes display) and return value (trigger status), but doesn't mention potential side effects like whether this affects subsequent measurements, if it requires specific device state, or latency considerations. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and usage context, second sentence discloses return value. Every word earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, it doesn't fully explain the 'trigger status' return value or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 ('stop acquisition', 'freeze the display') and identifies the resource (oscilloscope acquisition/display). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run' (which would start acquisition) and 'single' (which captures one acquisition).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool: 'before reading measurements or cursors for stable values.' This tells the agent precisely when this tool is needed versus alternatives like directly reading measurements without stopping acquisition.

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