scpi_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description explains WHY: queries can consume state or start tests, so it is not universally read-only. It further discloses that no extra error query, preset, retry or RF change is injected, that unsupported queries may time out or raise -420, and that it is single-shot with no batching.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's role and consistently dense with constraints, with no filler sentences. The mid-sentence line breaks make it slightly harder to scan, but each clause carries a distinct rule, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description states the return shape (one ASCII response) as well as the limits and failure modes (timeouts, -420). Combined with the explicit transfer to block transport for binary payloads and to read_errors for error queries, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0% (the lone 'command' property is an undocumented string), so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: one printable command, under 128 bytes, no semicolon batches, no newlines, no AR488 ++ commands. These are hard formatting and size constraints the schema does not express.

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?

Names the exact action (send one ASCII query, read one ASCII response) and immediately frames it as an 'expert escape hatch', which distinguishes it from the narrow siblings scpi_write, read_errors, and the manual-lookup tools. An agent can identify both the operation and its exceptional status without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: look the command up in the Markdown manuals first, use read_errors for querying errors separately, and use the driver's block transport instead of this tool for binary responses. It also names the condition under which the tool is appropriate (raw ASCII one-shot commands) versus when it is not.

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