check_error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by specifying the two possible return values and warning about concurrency, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. A minor gap is that it does not state whether querying clears the SCPI error queue, a known side-effect of such operations.

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 three terse sentences: the first names the action and resource, the second states return values, and the third provides a crucial concurrency warning. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers how to invoke it and what to expect. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the error queue is cleared on read, but the core information needed to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 zero parameters and the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details, matching the baseline expected for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action ('Query'), a specific resource ('SCPI error queue'), and the expected behavior ('Returns the error if present, or 'No error' if clear'). This makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the sibling measurement and control tools.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for checking the error queue, and it provides an explicit usage restriction: 'Do not call concurrently with any other rigol tool.' It does not name sibling alternatives, but no listed sibling appears to offer an equivalent error-queue inspection function, so alternative routing is not needed.

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