safe_scpi_query_tcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait of being read-only, which is essential for safe invocation. It also adds the '?' suffix requirement, giving guidance on the expected command format. However, it omits details about connection prerequisites or error handling, so it is not a 5.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb and immediately conveys the key constraints and transport, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits prerequisite information such as the need for an active TCP connection (given the sibling tool connect_tcp). This could lead to invocation errors. The safety and command format are covered, but the connection dependency is a notable gap.

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 schema has no description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the 'command' parameter as a read-only SCPI query ending in '?', providing clear format guidance beyond the bare string type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send'), defines the resource ('SCPI query'), and includes clear constraints ('read-only', 'ending in ?') and transport ('raw TCP'). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like measure_tcp or auto_setup_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?

The description clearly conveys the tool is for read-only SCPI queries, which establishes a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'read-only' and 'ending in ?' constraints effectively tell the agent when this tool is appropriate.

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