afg2125_configure_fm

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

Annotations are all false, providing minimal safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail of 'carrier/deviation limit checks', but does not explain what happens on failure (e.g., error vs. clamping) or whether settings are overwritten. This is some value beyond annotations but not exhaustive.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and scannable.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, and the description is quite brief. While the core purpose is covered, missing usage context and parameter semantics make it only minimally complete for an agent to confidently invoke. The output schema mitigates the need for return value explanation, but more detail on configuration behavior would improve it.

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 coverage is 0%: neither the schema nor description explains parameters like source, deviation_hz, modulation_function, or modulation_frequency_hz. The description's mention of 'deviation limit checks' hints at deviation_hz but does not clarify units, ranges, or relationships. With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Enable and configure FM with carrier/deviation limit checks.' This uses a specific verb (configure) and resource (FM), and the mention of limit checks distinguishes it from simpler toggles like set_fm_enabled and from AM/FSK configurations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as afg2125_set_fm_enabled for simple toggling, nor when not to use this tool. The context of siblings is not leveraged to direct the agent.

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