band_sweep

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 side effect that it moves the user's SDR++ view, that the original VFO frequency is restored afterwards, and what is returned (detected signals plus a combined spectrum image). It omits expected duration/blocking behavior and any interference with concurrent recording, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then returns, then the side-effect note. No filler or repetition.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid: an agent cannot determine acceptable start/stop values or units, sweep duration implications of dwell_s/top, or detection sensitivity from threshold_db. Purpose and one side effect are covered, but the invocation-critical detail is missing.

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?

All six parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not: start/stop units and format (string), dwell_s, fft_size, threshold_db, and the meaning of 'top' are never explained. 'Retuning in steps' hints loosely at the stepping parameters but provides no usable semantics.

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 ('Sweep a frequency range ... by retuning SDR++ in steps') and clarifies the scope that separates it from siblings: a range wider than the SDR's bandwidth, unlike the single-bandwidth spectrum_snapshot or single-frequency sdr_tune.

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 phrase 'wider than the SDR's bandwidth' implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies versus a single snapshot or a tune. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (spectrum_snapshot, sdr_tune) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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