acq_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the action as 'disruptive' and requires confirmation, providing key behavioral information. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of disruption (e.g., stopping other acquisitions).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no extraneous words. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose and behavior adequately. It lacks explicit guidance on how continuous acquisition interacts with other acquisition modes, but the sibling list provides context.

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% with the confirm parameter fully described as a safety gate. The description's 'needs confirm=True' adds no new meaning, so the score is at baseline for high coverage.

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 'Start continuous (free-running) acquisition,' specifying the verb 'start' and the resource 'acquisition' with the qualifier 'continuous.' This distinguishes it from siblings like acq_single (single-shot acquisition) and acq_stop.

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?

States 'Disruptive — needs confirm=True,' which provides a critical condition for use. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tool names imply other acquisition modes, and the guideline is succinct.

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