get_acquire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read back' implies a non-mutating read, which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, permissions, or side effects. For a simple getter this is adequate 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?

The description is a single, efficiently structured sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the additional sample-rate detail is appropriately brief.

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 low complexity, zero input parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description adds the useful note that the returned settings include the current sample rate, but there are no input parameters to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read back') and a precise resource ('acquisition settings'), and the phrase 'incl. current sample rate' clarifies scope further. It clearly contrasts with the sibling set_acquire by verb, so an agent can distinguish a read from a write without opening the schema.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as set_acquire, get_timebase, or get_channel. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent choose it correctly.

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