scpi_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: a setup backup occurs first, and the call fails when the scope reports an error. It does not explain reversibility or rate limits, but the added side-effect and failure semantics are substantial.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the alternative and the side-effect/failure behavior. 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?

For a single-parameter raw-command tool with no output schema and annotations already carrying the safety flags, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, backup, and failure behavior. Only minor gaps remain around accepted command syntax rules and return/failure detail beyond 'fails'.

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 is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It provides a concrete example command (':CHANnel1:VERNier ON') that illustrates the expected format, which meaningfully compensates for the undocumented parameter, though it doesn't state constraints such as required terminator or quoting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send one raw SCPI command that expects no reply') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling scpi_query. The example command makes the scope of 'raw command' concrete.

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 routes reply-expecting calls to scpi_query and positions itself as the catch-all for anything the other tools don't cover. It gives clear context but no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the query/write split.

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