acq_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Disruptive' hints at side effects but does not explain what is disrupted, what state changes occur, or whether it modifies hardware settings. Completely insufficient.

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 extremely short but misses essential information. True conciseness would convey all necessary details in few words; this is woefully under-specified.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description fails to cover what the tool does, its effects, its parameters, or how it fits with sibling tools. Incomplete for any use.

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 input schema has two parameters (args, kwargs) with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about what parameters do, their format, or accepted values.

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 clearly states the action 'Start' and the resource 'continuous acquisition', and distinguishes from siblings like acq_single (single acquisition) and acq_stop (stop acquisition). The term 'disruptive' adds context but is not explained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as acq_configure or acq_single. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for proper sequencing are provided.

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