get_acquisition_status_tcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Query' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no settings are changed, whether a connection is required, or what the return structure contains beyond the named fields.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the verb and the key data being queried. No filler or redundant information.

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?

This is a simple no-parameter query tool with an output schema present. The description fully captures the tool's purpose and scope; no additional behavioral notes are necessary.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. With no parameters to describe, the description needs to contribute nothing on parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and identifies the exact resource (acquisition state, timebase, sample rate, trigger status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_acquisition_tcp, which is a write/set operation.

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 description implies a read-only status query but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like configure_acquisition_tcp or get_channel_tcp. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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