la_capture

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description never explains the behavioral implications: that la_capture actually starts hardware acquisition, whether it blocks until done, whether samples are retained for a later export, or that export operations write files to disk (filename param). For a non-read-only tool with zero added context, the description leaves the agent guessing.

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?

One short purpose sentence followed by two compact call examples – front-loaded and free of filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what each of the six operation values yields (preview vs. last vs. export_summary are entirely opaque, and exports have no stated destination or return). Only 'single' and 'export_vcd' are illustrated, leaving the agent unable to anticipate return shape or side effects for the rest.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the operation enum, sample_rate_hz, and sample_count. The examples reinforce that operation and rate/count are used together, but add no semantics the schema lacks, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Acquire digital traces') plus a second capability ('export capture data'), so the agent knows this tool captures and exports. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like la_trigger or la_decode, which also operate on capture data, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 two worked examples imply usage patterns (a hardware capture vs. an export), which is better than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about prerequisites (must la_trigger be armed first?), and no routing to or away from sibling tools.

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