scope_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the transport (SCPI) and that it returns a response, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or side effects. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: three sentences plus a parameter line and transport note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, with 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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not detailed here), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics adequately. Minor gap: does not mention if response is raw or parsed, but output schema likely covers that.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a clear explanation of the 'command' parameter as a 'SCPI query string' with examples like 'C1:VDIV?' or 'TRMD?', which compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 sends a SCPI query command and returns the response, and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly calling it an 'escape hatch' for commands not covered by dedicated tools, with specific examples of dedicated alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use dedicated tools whenever one exists' and warns against using for VBS strings, directing to scope_wavesource_* tools. This clearly tells when to use and when not to use this tool.

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