satellite_decode_meteor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral facts: it is asynchronous, it monopolizes the RTL-SDR for the duration, and images are written to the recordings directory. It does not say what happens if the call is made outside a pass window or whether the process self-terminates after 'duration'.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the exclusive-resource warning, and the follow-up/output location. Nothing is redundant and the action is front-loaded.

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?

For an async capture tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers mode, resource contention, progress checking, and output destination. The main gap is that it never ties invocation to a predicted pass window via satellite_predict_passes.

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 100%, with defaults, an enum, and range bounds already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about gain, duration, or satellite choice beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Start decoding'), a specific resource ('Meteor-M weather satellite LRPT pass'), the backend ('SatDump'), and the execution mode ('in the background'). This cleanly separates it from satellite_stop_decoding and satellite_get_status.

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?

It gives a clear use context plus an explicit follow-up path ('Check progress with satellite_get_status') and a precondition warning that it takes exclusive control of the RTL-SDR. It does not name satellite_predict_passes as the way to know when a pass is actually happening, nor state what to do if the SDR is already in use.

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