set_run_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaning of each state and the hotkey-routing behavior, but omits side effects such as whether STOP halts acquisition immediately, whether commands block, or what the response contains, leaving notable gaps for a control tool.

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 text is dense and front-loads the state list before the hotkeys detail, with no filler sentences. The '(3.26.10)' version tag is slightly extraneous but does not materially bloat the definition.

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 description covers both parameters' semantics adequately for a run-control tool. Remaining gaps are behavioral (blocking, side effects) rather than informational, so it is close to complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates all five valid `state` values with per-value semantics and explains what `hotkeys=True` changes. This is substantially more than the bare schema provides, though it never states types or the 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?

The opening 'Run control' is a weak noun phrase, but the state enumeration (RUN | STOP | SINGLE | FORCE | CLEAR) with parenthetical meanings makes the purpose concrete: controlling the oscilloscope acquisition run state. It is clear enough to act on, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from related siblings like wait_complete or autoscale.

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 parentheticals ('single acquisition, arm', 'force trigger now', 'clear screen') imply when each state is appropriate, and the hotkeys line gives a condition for routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or mention of related tools, so usage is only implied.

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