decode

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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: that long captures block for `seconds`, and a privacy caveat about personal information in pager traffic. It stops short of stating hardware/permission requirements or failure modes.

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 action, then bulleted decoder options, then the two caveats. Efficient, though the mid-sentence line break around the decoder list makes it slightly awkward to parse.

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 4-param, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers decoders, duration, and privacy but leaves the frequency format (units/expected string) and bandwidth semantics unexplained, and gives no sense of what a successful decode returns.

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 meaningfully documents `decoder` (enumerating valid values) and gives `seconds` behavioral meaning (blocking duration), but `frequency` and `bandwidth_hz` get no format, unit, or range guidance. 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+resource ('capture and decode digital transmissions') and enumerates concrete decoder families (multimon-ng pager/POCSAG/FLEX/APRS/DTMF, rtl_433 ISM sensors), which distinguishes it from capture-only siblings like record_iq/record_audio and from analyze_signal. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

It gives practical routing hints ('rtl_433: ism -- run on captured IQ'), implying which decoder applies to which target, but never states when to choose decode over analyze_signal, record_iq, or identify_frequency, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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