scope_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read operation that returns cached profile data from scope_connect. It explains the mechanism (*IDN?) and transport (local). There are no contradictions or omissions.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, output details, prerequisite, and transport. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (no input params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, behavioral traits, and return content. Without annotations, it compensates well.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds value by detailing what the output contains, which is helpful. However, since parameter semantics focus on input, the score remains at baseline.

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 it returns the detected model profile, listing specific attributes like family name, channel count, bandwidth, etc. The verb 'Return' and resource 'model profile' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like scope_connect or scope_identify.

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 explicitly says to 'Connect with scope_connect first,' providing a clear prerequisite. It also notes that the profile is detected from *IDN? and that transport is local reading cached data. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context implies it's for after connection.

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