analyze_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return content, that bandwidth is auto-estimated when omitted, and the VFO side-effect (SDR++ retunes and restores the original VFO unless tune_vfo=True). This is genuinely useful state-change disclosure, though permissions/rate behavior is not addressed.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: capability list first, then return values, then parameter/side-effect caveats. Every sentence adds signal; nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone, and it covers capabilities, outputs, and the VFO behavior well. The gaps are the undocumented frequency format and seconds parameter, which an agent would need to call with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains bandwidth_hz (estimated if omitted) and tune_vfo (leaves VFO on the signal for listening), covering two of four params, but says nothing about the required frequency format or the meaning of seconds (default 2). Partial compensation only.

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 (measure) and resource (a signal) and enumerates concrete measurements — occupied bandwidth, FM deviation, symbol rate, CTCSS tones — that make its role unambiguous against siblings like sdr_tune or spectrum_snapshot. It also names what it returns (modulation guesses, band-plan context, waterfall image).

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 framing 'to help identify it' implies the context (signal investigation), but the description never says when to choose this over nearby siblings such as identify_frequency, spectrum_snapshot, or band_sweep. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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