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 states that the command 'Returns trigger status' and warns against concurrent calls. However, it does not explain what trigger status means, whether acquisition continues indefinitely, how to stop it, or what side effects occur on the instrument state.

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 only two sentences and every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then immediately provides the return behavior and the most critical usage constraint. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 basic start action, return value, and concurrency warning. However, it leaves out meaningful operational context such as the ongoing nature of acquisition, how to terminate it (presumably via 'stop'), and what form the trigger status takes. These are not required for invocation but would help an agent reason about sequencing and side effects.

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, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids padding with irrelevant parameter details.

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 continuous acquisition.' The word 'continuous' implies contrast with the sibling 'single' tool and distinguishes the scope of the operation. However, it does not explicitly name that alternative or provide any further differentiation from other acquisition-related siblings.

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 an explicit operational warning: 'Do not call concurrently with any other rigol tool.' It also implies appropriate use through 'continuous acquisition,' which contrasts with the sibling 'single' tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over specific alternatives, but the continuous-vs-single distinction provides reasonable context.

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