explore_scpi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the query auto-detection and suggests a safe starting command (*IDN?), but it does not explicitly mention that some SCPI commands may be destructive or alter instrument state. This leaves a gap in transparency for a tool that can send arbitrary commands.

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 concise and well-structured: a short purpose statement, bulleted use cases, a numbered workflow, and an args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, exploratory nature) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, when to use, workflow, and parameter meaning. It could be slightly improved by noting error handling or limitations (e.g., commands that might not be supported), but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all three parameters: alias as connected instrument alias, command as SCPI string, and query as boolean with auto-detection logic (command ending with ?). This provides value beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('探索性发送' / exploratory send) and resource ('SCPI 命令'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scpi_query or scpi_write, which are for direct query/write rather than exploration.

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 explicitly lists three use cases (unknown instrument, insufficient commands, syntax verification) and provides a step-by-step workflow starting with *IDN?, followed by exploration, then saving with save_learned_command(). It tells when to use this tool and mentions the companion tool for further action.

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