configure_acquisition

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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates mutation (control, configure) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., clearing waveforms on run, prerequisites). Adds some context but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then specific guidance. Very concise and clearly structured.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level usage but misses parameter interactions (e.g., which trigger params apply with which commands). Adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description merely restates that timebase and trigger can be set, adding no new meaning beyond the well-documented 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?

Clearly states the tool controls acquisition state and configures timebase/trigger settings. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_acquisition_status (read-only) and configure_channel (channel settings). The verb-resource combination is specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use 'command' to run/stop the scope and optionally set timebase/trigger. Implicitly suggests that for reading status, use get_acquisition_status, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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