screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the capture action, the return format (image plus absolute path), the fallback nature of the tool, and a concurrency constraint. This is more than sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and return value, the second contrasts with faster/cheaper siblings, and the third gives precise visual-use cases plus a concurrency warning. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

The description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns (since there is no output schema), when to choose it over siblings, when it is a fallback, and the concurrency restriction. Nothing essential is missing for a no-parameter tool.

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 is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level documentation is needed or expected.

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 verb 'Capture' and the resource 'oscilloscope display,' and specifies the return value (image and PNG absolute path). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as a fallback and pointing to measure/measure_between and get_waveform for numeric/trace data.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use it only for visual checks such as menus, cursor placement, and display rendering, and avoid it for numeric or trace data where siblings are preferable. Even includes a concurrency exclusion ('Do not call concurrently with any other rigol tool').

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