sdr_set_bias_tee

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the hardware effect and the device families involved, which goes beyond the schema, but it omits whether a device must already be connected, whether the setting persists across sessions, and the risk of feeding DC power into an unprotected input.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying device list in parentheses; nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 a simple one-parameter hardware toggle with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and why, but leaves out the connection prerequisite and the safety caveat that make a hardware power toggle risky to call blindly.

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 schema has a single boolean 'enabled' with no description coverage (0%). The phrase 'enable or disable' maps the parameter to its two states clearly, but no further detail is added about the default-true behavior or per-device constraints.

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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and the concrete resource (antenna port power / bias tee), plus the operational purpose (powering an LNA). It is unambiguous and no sibling tool in the list touches bias tee, though it never explicitly states that differentiation.

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 implied by the stated purpose (powering an LNA on RTL-SDR Blog V3/V4 or HackRF), which gives an agent enough context to know when it is relevant. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an active connection, and no warning about devices that lack bias tee support.

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