record_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is a saved WAV and that it runs independently of SDR++'s own audio stream, but omits where the file is written, whether the call blocks for the recording duration, and any permission/concurrency constraints.

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-loaded with the core action and followed by the differentiator and the mode vocabulary. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 5-parameter file-producing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the artifact and modes but leaves the required frequency format, file destination, and blocking behavior unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the schema explains nothing. The description compensates by enumerating valid mode values (FM/NFM, WFM, AM, USB, LSB, CW), which is genuinely valuable, but leaves frequency format, seconds, audio_rate, and bandwidth_hz entirely unexplained.

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 compound action (demodulate a frequency and save a WAV) and the output artifact, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the closely related sibling record_iq, which records raw IQ rather than demodulated audio.

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 parenthetical 'so the user can keep listening elsewhere' implies one use scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over record_iq, decode, or sdr_tune, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. SDR must be running/tuned).

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