acq_configure

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

No annotations provided, but description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses disruptive nature, need for confirmation, and explains behavioral trade-offs of memory depth and acquisition modes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and critical behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It covers parameter behavior and the critical confirmation requirement. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites like oscilloscope state, but acceptable.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds operational meaning by explaining the effect of deeper memory (more points) and the trade-offs of averaging/peak modes (update rate vs noise rejection).

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets acquisition type and/or memory depth, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acq_run, acq_single, or set_timebase by focusing on acquisition configuration parameters.

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 notes the tool is disruptive and requires confirm=True, providing clear context for when to use the confirm parameter. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for the agent to differentiate.

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