get_rssi_src_frame_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral traits. It discloses the derivation method and a default state ('OFF'), but does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires permissions, or what side effects exist. The sibling set_rssi_src_frame_errors suggests configurability, which is unaddressed.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and context, with no wasted words. The format is efficient and direct.

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?

The description is relatively complete for a simple getter with no parameters, but it lacks specification of the return value format (e.g., is it a numeric RSSI value or a boolean indicating use of frame errors?). The phrase 'Derive RSSI' suggests a computed value, but it's ambiguous whether the tool retrieves the configuration setting or the derived RSSI. Given the sibling set_rssi_src_frame_errors, the description could clarify.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info (none needed), but includes an extra detail about return type suggestion '[INT8, default: OFF]', which provides value beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states that the tool derives RSSI from frame error rate, specifying it is for receivers that do not report RSSI directly. This effectively distinguishes it from other RSSI-related getters like get_rssi_channel or get_rssi_scale.

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 description hints at when to use ('for receivers that do not report RSSI directly') but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternative tools. Siblings like get_rssi_channel are not compared, so the guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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