sdr_set_sample_rate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It contributes the genuinely useful per-device valid ranges (RTL-SDR 225 kHz-3.2 MHz, HackRF 2-20 MHz), but says nothing about whether the device must already be connected, whether the rate persists across reconnects, or how out-of-range values are rejected. For a hardware-mutating call with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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 sentence, unit stated first, hardware constraints in a compact parenthetical. Nothing extraneous and no information 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and valid ranges adequately. It is still incomplete on operational context — connection state requirement and interaction with other tuning calls — which an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Sample rate in Hz (e.g., 2048000)', so the baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by supplying device-dependent hardware limits the schema lacks (it only says exclusiveMinimum 0), which directly changes what value an agent should pass.

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+resource ('Set the SDR sample rate in Hz') and adds device-specific valid ranges, so the agent knows exactly which knob is being turned versus siblings like sdr_set_frequency or sdr_set_gain. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 infers this is the tuning call, but nothing states prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected via sdr_connect) or when-not-to-call. No alternatives are named, so a caller needing frequency or gain changes must infer that from sibling names alone.

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