single

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the asynchronous arming behavior, automatic stop after one trigger, return of trigger status, the fact that acquisition is incomplete until a trigger, and a concurrency restriction. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema or annotations could provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds the most important behavioral caveats and the concurrency warning. Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what the tool does, its async behavior, when it completes, what it returns, and a concurrency restriction. Since there is no output schema, the description mentions 'trigger status' but does not specify possible values or structure, which is a minor but real gap.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and there is no ambiguity introduced by the empty schema.

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 action ('Arm the scope for a single acquisition') and adds meaningful behavior: it stops automatically after one trigger event and returns trigger status. This is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like run or stop to fully differentiate them.

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 concrete operational guidance: acquisition does not complete until a trigger occurs, and the user should call stop or check trigger status before reading measurements. It also explicitly warns against concurrent use with other rigol tools. It stops short of naming alternative tools or conditions for choosing this over run, but the guidance is actionable.

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