single

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the action 'triggers once, then stops', which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens to previously acquired data, whether this changes the device state, or if it requires a configured trigger). For a simple control action, this is partial transparency but lacks full context.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('single-shot acquisition') and immediately states the stopping behavior. This is an ideal conciseness level for a no-parameter tool.

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 is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and a clear one-sentence behavior. Given its elementary nature, the description is practically complete. However, it does not mention how it relates to sibling tools like 'run' or 'stop', nor does it clarify whether it requires a preconfigured trigger. These small omissions keep it from being a perfect 5.

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, so the input schema is empty and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. It correctly implies there are no configurable options.

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 states a specific action ('single-shot acquisition') with a clear behavioral qualifier ('triggers once, then stops'). It distinguishes itself from likely continuous acquisition tools like 'run' and from 'capture_waveform' by emphasizing the 'single' nature, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. This makes the purpose clear, but slightly generic because 'acquisition' is not defined further.

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 'run', 'stop', or 'capture_waveform'. The description does not mention conditions that would favor this tool over a continuous acquisition, nor any prerequisites or relationship to other tools. The agent is left to infer that 'single' is appropriate for one-shot measurements, but this is not explicit.

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