sdr_get_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the response reports whether an external decoder currently holds the radio — a real conflict signal an agent needs — but does not say how it behaves when no device is connected, whether it errors or reports an idle state, or whether it is strictly non-mutating.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the operation and its returned facets, with zero filler. Every clause (connection, tuning, decoders, external holder) adds 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and with zero parameters the description need only convey purpose and scope — which it does. The only omission is state-dependent behavior, such as the result when no SDR is connected or actively tuned.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Nothing is claimed that conflicts with the empty schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("Get current SDR status") and enumerates the constituent parts: connection, tuning, running decoders, and external decoder ownership. That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like sdr_list_devices or satellite_get_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only probe to call before sdr_connect, sdr_set_frequency, or pager_start_decoding. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as requiring an active connection.

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