run_control

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

The description explains what each action does (e.g., start, stop, arm, auto-configure). It mentions a key behavioral constraint for 'stop'. With no annotations provided, the description covers basic behavior but lacks depth on side effects or error conditions.

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 concise, using bullet points for each action. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all actions and provides necessary context (e.g., stop requirement). It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each enum value of the 'action' parameter, adding critical meaning beyond the bare enum list. This compensates entirely for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Control acquisition state' and lists six specific actions, each with a brief explanation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'configure_acquisition' or 'get_waveform'.

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?

It provides explicit context for 'stop' (required before reading deep memory), indicating when it's necessary. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives.

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