acq_single

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'disruptive' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., interrupts ongoing acquisitions, requires prior configuration). There is no mention of idempotency, state requirements, or side effects.

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?

At only three words, the description is extremely short but sacrifices substance. It lacks structure, front-loads minimal information, and omits critical details that could reasonably fit in a few more sentences.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter documentation, the description is grossly incomplete for a tool with two generic required parameters and many siblings. The agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the parameters are generic 'args' and 'kwargs' with no type or purpose explanation. The description does not compensate by clarifying what arguments or keyword arguments are expected, leaving the agent unable to construct valid calls.

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 states the action ('Arm') and resource ('single acquisition'), adding '(disruptive)' as a behavioral hint. However, 'acquisition' is domain-specific and no further clarification is given. Among siblings like acq_configure, acq_run, acq_stop, this tool's specific role is not clearly distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include various acquisition actions, but no conditions or prerequisites are mentioned. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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