osc_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of setting trigger mode to AUTO, but it does not state whether the acquisition is continuous, whether the call blocks until a trigger, or how this interacts with an already-running acquisition.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and uses a parenthetical to convey the key side effect without adding length.

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?

For a zero-parameter command, the description covers the core effect and its side effect, and the output schema handles return-value expectations. It falls short of full completeness only because it does not place the command in relation to osc_single or osc_stop, but that gap is mostly covered by purpose clarity.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description cannot add parameter meaning that does not exist.

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 a specific verb ('Start acquisition') and resource ('oscilloscope'), and clarifies the behavioral scope with the parenthetical 'set trigger mode to AUTO'. This distinguishes it from siblings like osc_stop, osc_single, and osc_set_trigger_mode.

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 parenthetical ('set trigger mode to AUTO') implies this is for AUTO-triggered continuous acquisition, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. An agent must infer the distinction from the sibling names rather than from explicit routing instructions.

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