scope_timebase_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states what data is returned and the transport (SCPI). It does not indicate any destructive side effects. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., device connection) or potential errors, but the simple read-only nature minimizes risk.

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 note. It front-loads the purpose and lists outputs directly, with no wasted 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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently covers the intent and return items. The addition of SCPI transport is helpful for domain familiarity. No gaps in essential context.

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, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by listing the returned fields, explaining what the tool provides beyond the empty schema.

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 'Get all current timebase settings in one call' and lists the specific returned values (time/div, trigger delay, sample rate, memory size). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scope_set_tdiv (which sets) and scope_trigger_info (which is trigger-specific).

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 implies usage when you need current timebase settings, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of read-only nature or that it aggregates multiple values compared to individual getters among siblings.

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