Run / stop / single / autoset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: autoset rewrites vertical/horizontal/trigger and requires an explicit confirm flag. It stops short of describing what run/stop/single do to ongoing state or whether the instrument must be open first, so the disclosure is good but partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the one high-risk caveat. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the autoset warning covers the main hazard. Still, the tool has four parameters and the description leaves dialect/resource entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a control tool whose behavior depends on target selection.

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 only 50%: 'action' and 'confirm' are already documented in the schema, and the description's autoset/confirm note merely restates the schema's confirm description. The remaining parameters, 'dialect' and 'resource', are undocumented in both places and the description does nothing to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb ('control acquisition') and enumerates the exact action set (run, stop, single, autoset), so an agent immediately knows what this does. It implicitly separates from siblings like scope_configure or scope_capture_waveform, but never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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 gives a concrete usage rule for one branch – 'Autoset changes vertical/horizontal/trigger; pass confirm=true' – which is actionable. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over scope_configure, or whether run/stop/single need any preconditions, leaving usage largely implied.

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