Dd Results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the returned numbers are and what they mean per modulation type, and implies a read-only measurement, but says nothing about permissions, timing constraints, or side effects. The absence of annotations leaves a real 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact per-modulation metric listing, then a single usage tip. Dense but each clause earns its place; the metric enumeration is long but informative.

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 values needn't be explained, and the description goes further by naming the metrics. However, with no annotations and three undocumented parameters (note, label, add_to_report), an agent still lacks guidance on side effects and reporting behavior.

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 50%; repeat, interval_s, and include_bits are documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning to repeat ('stable figure') and says nothing about note, label, or add_to_report. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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 and resource: it returns digital demod measurement results as numbers, and enumerates the exact metric set per modulation family (PSK/QAM, FSK/GMSK, ASK). An agent can distinguish it from dd_constellation (visual) and dd_configure without opening a schema, though no sibling is named 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?

The only usage direction is 'Use repeat > 1 for a stable figure,' which is a parameter tip rather than when-to-use guidance. It implies you read results after configuring the demod, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives.

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