dpo2012b_acquire_waveform

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

The description adds useful context about data formats and channels, but with all annotations false, it bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not explicitly state whether this operation modifies instrument state or is purely a read, leaving some ambiguity. 'Acquire' implies a read-like operation, but the description does not confirm safety or reversibility.

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 redundant words. It front-loads the core action and includes only essential qualifiers (formats and channels), making it highly scannable.

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 has six optional parameters and an output schema, but the description provides only a minimal overview. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any description of return behavior, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only indirectly mentions 'ASCII or IEEE-488.2 binary' (encoding) and 'CH1 or CH2' (channel). It provides no explanation for start, stop, width, or max_points, which are all optional but meaningful parameters. The agent would have to infer their semantics from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Acquire'), the object ('scaled ASCII or IEEE-488.2 binary waveform points'), and the scope ('from CH1 or CH2'). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like measure or capture_screenshot.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dpo2012b_measure or dpo2012b_query_binary. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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