scope_scan

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the method in detail: probes each host on port 111, queries *IDN?, filters for LeCroy, scans in parallel. Also states transport is local (TCP socket probe). This is good transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (scanning method, args, transport) and is concise. Front-loaded with purpose and distinction. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains the scanning process, parameter details, and transport. No missing information needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains that subnet is a CIDR notation, provides an example, and describes default behavior (env var or auto-detection). Schema only has type string and default empty, so description is essential.

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?

Description clearly states 'Scan the network for LeCroy oscilloscopes', uses specific verb (scan) and resource (network for LeCroy oscilloscopes). It also distinguishes from sibling scope_list_resources by explaining it is more reliable for LAN-connected scopes.

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 'More reliable than scope_list_resources for LAN-connected scopes', giving clear guidance on when to prefer this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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