scope_force_trigger

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the action (force immediate trigger) but does not disclose potential side effects, implications for data acquisition, or what the output schema contains. For a parameterless tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a transport line. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and an output schema existing, the description covers the tool's primary purpose and usage context. However, it could be more complete by describing what the output contains (e.g., status or success indicator), but for a simple trigger command it is largely sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds 'Transport: SCPI' which is not parametric but provides context. Since there is nothing to explain about parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 forces an immediate trigger event (FRTR) and distinguishes it by providing a specific use case: when in NORM mode and the signal hasn't triggered. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scope_arm or scope_configure_trigger.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (in NORM mode when signal hasn't triggered). However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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