measure_tcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses no behavioral traits. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only query, whether it requires an active TCP connection, whether it blocks until measurement completes, or what the output represents.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The phrase 'SDS-style candidate commands' is unexplained and the sentence doesn't earn its place by conveying meaningful information.

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 presence of an output schema and two parameters with enums, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain what measurement is performed, how the parameters map to measurement commands, or what the output represents.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for either 'channel' or 'parameter'. The enum values (PKPK, MAX, etc.) are not explained, so the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 is essentially tautological: 'Take a measurement' repeats the tool name 'measure_tcp'. The qualifier 'SDS-style candidate commands' adds jargon without clarifying what measurement is taken, on what resource, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_waveform_tcp.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention required connection state, differences from get_waveform_tcp or configure_acquisition_tcp, or any prerequisites.

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