scope_get_acquisition_status

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses returns (TRMD? and INR?) and bit interpretation, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects. Adds value beyond schema but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence captures purpose, followed by concise technical details. Highly efficient.

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 no parameters and a simple output (implied by description), the description fully explains the return values and key bit meaning. No gaps for this type of tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which goes beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Query the current acquisition and trigger state' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scope_trigger_info and scope_get_waveform by focusing on acquisition status.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only a note about SAMPLE_STATUS? not being supported on WS3000Z, which is a compatibility detail rather than usage guidance.

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