run_control

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

Annotations mark the tool destructive and non-idempotent; the description goes further and explains exactly why — run and single overwrite a stopped capture — plus the blocking behavior of wait_s for single. It does not cover prerequisites (e.g. required acquisition state) or failure modes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action summary before caveats. Every sentence adds usable information; no restatement of the name 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?

Though there is no output schema, the description names the return values (trigger status RUN/WAIT/TD/AUTO/STOP and sweep mode), so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with the action semantics and destructive caveat, nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: each action enum value is defined, and wait_s is explained as the maximum wait for single completion. It omits the wait_s default of 0, which is only visible in the 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 gives a specific verb set tied to the resource: start/freeze acquisition, arm a single acquisition, force a trigger. It also explains each enum value (run, stop, single, force_trigger) in plain operational terms, so the agent can distinguish this 'execute an acquisition state change' tool from the configure_* siblings that set parameters.

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 states the conditions under which each action applies, notably that run and single overwrite a stopped capture and that single blocks for wait_s. There is no explicit reference to alternatives such as configure_acquisition or configure_trigger, but the setup-versus-execute distinction is inferable from the action semantics.

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