Initiate a logic analyzer capture and block until data is acquired, using either real hardware or the demo simulator.
Start one acquisition. BLOCKS until the capture completes.
Real capture requires hardware attached; simulate=true runs the Demo device instead (mutually exclusive — mismatch returns an error so you always know whether data is real). Returns actual depth/time afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| simulate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: the call blocks until capture completes, returns actual depth/time, and raises an error on a simulate mismatch so data authenticity is guaranteed. It could also mention prerequisites such as needing a connection, but the main behavioral traits are covered.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: the blocking behavior is front-loaded, followed by the simulation trade-off and the return value. 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?
For a one-parameter boolean tool with no output schema, the description covers blocking, mode selection, error behavior, and return value. Missing details like connection prerequisites or timeout behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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% but the description explains the only parameter, simulate, by saying it runs the Demo device and is mutually exclusive with real hardware capture. This adds functional meaning beyond the bare boolean name and default.
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 action ('Start one acquisition') with a distinctive blocking behavior that makes the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'capture', so it falls short of full sibling-level clarity.
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?
Provides clear operating context: real capture needs hardware while simulate=true uses the Demo device, and the two modes are mutually exclusive with mismatch errors. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'capture', but the guidance is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.