scope_write

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behavioral traits: no response expected, SCPI transport, and a warning against VBS strings. For a simple command tool, this is adequate, though it could mention whether the command is validated or if there are rate limits.

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?

Description is concise with two clearly structured paragraphs. The first paragraph states purpose and usage guidelines; the second provides parameter details. No redundant sentences.

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 low complexity (1 param, output schema exists but not described), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, when to use, and parameter format. Missing details about return value or side effects, but these are minimal for a command tool with no response.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides clear semantics for the sole parameter 'command' with examples and format (e.g., 'C1:VDIV 0.5'). This adds significant value beyond the schema which only specifies type string.

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?

Clearly states the tool sends SCPI write commands with no response expected, and distinguishes it from dedicated tools by labeling it as an 'escape hatch'. The verb 'send' and resource 'SCPI write command' are 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?

Explicitly states when to use (for commands not covered by dedicated tools) and when not to use (do not send raw VBS strings; use wavesource tools instead). Also advises to prefer dedicated tools for edge cases and model differences.

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