scpi_write

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'write command'. It does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or return value behavior, relying entirely on the annotation for safety info.

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 very short (one line), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not provide enough value to justify its brevity.

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 complexity (generic SCPI write with 2 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema), the description is far from complete. It lacks return value info, parameter format, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent has no clue what 'alias' or 'params_json' mean. The description must compensate for the missing schema descriptions but fails entirely, leaving the parameters opaque.

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 '[GENERIC] 发送任意 SCPI 写命令' clearly indicates the tool sends any SCPI write command, distinguishing it from the sibling scpi_query which is for reading. However, it does not specify the instrument context, so it is somewhat generic but still clear.

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 on when to use this generic tool versus the many specific SCPI command tools (e.g., cmw_*, mxa_*, ps_*). It does not explain that this is for custom or unsupported commands, leaving the agent without direction on alternatives.

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