configure_acquisition_tcp

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Configure' without mentioning side effects, device state changes, permissions, or whether 'candidate commands' are actually applied. The phrasing is ambiguous and potentially misleading about the tool's effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The jargon 'SDS-style candidate commands' is not explained, making the sentence less useful than its length suggests. It is appropriately short but not well-structured for comprehension.

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 tool has 7 optional parameters and no required fields, yet the description provides no insight into how they interact or when to use various combinations. It lacks context about related tools, behavior, and parameter semantics, making it inadequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing usage and behavioral context.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. It does not explain valid formats for 'timebase' or 'trigger_delay', the significance of 'command' enums, or how parameters combine. The agent is left without essential information to construct valid calls.

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 specifies a verb ('Configure') and resource ('acquisition/timebase/trigger'), but does not clarify what 'SDS-style candidate commands' means or how it differs from sibling tools like configure_channel_tcp. It gives a general sense of purpose but lacks concrete detail.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_setup_tcp or configure_channel_tcp. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints for choosing this configuration tool over others.

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