run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that 'immediate status may lag' and directs the agent to confirm via get_scope_state, which is non-obvious and valuable. It does not discuss side effects or state changes, but for a simple zero-parameter start command this is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a necessary caveat and verification step. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description covers the essential action and the key post-invocation behavior. It could slightly improve by explicitly pointing to siblings like single or stop for alternative modes, but the current wording is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the operation as 'Start continuous acquisition,' naming a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like single and stop by specifying 'continuous' acquisition rather than single-shot or stopping behavior.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when continuous acquisition should begin. It also provides a follow-up action ('Query get_scope_state to confirm'), which helps the agent verify the operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like single or stop.

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