ca_cfar_detect

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it is a 2D CA-CFAR detector but does not explain side effects (e.g., data is read from 'last_loaded' source), output format, or requirements for prior computation. Missing crucial behavioral details.

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 wasted words. However, it omits important context that could be included without significant bloat, so balance is moderate.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks information about expected input data, preprocessing steps, and interpretation of results. For a complex detection algorithm, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Only two of four parameters (guard_cells, training_cells) are mentioned in the description. pfa and source are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to fully clarify parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a 2D Cell-Averaging CFAR detector with configurable guard/training cell geometry. It specifies the algorithm and key parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compute_fft or render_spectrogram.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., a 2D matrix must be available), or how it relates to sibling tools like range_doppler_map or classify_modulation.

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