record_iq

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 format options, that output sample rate is exactly bandwidth_hz, and that the filename carries frequency and rate, but it omits file location, overwrite behavior, permissions, and any return or completion details.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no obvious filler. The format and default guidance are integrated efficiently, though the shorthand 'freq' and 'fmt_' keeps it slightly less polished.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema recording tool with four parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits the seconds parameter, does not specify the frequency syntax, and does not say where files are saved, leaving the agent with important gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains fmt_ values and the bandwidth_hz/sample-rate relationship, but it does not describe the required frequency format or mention the seconds parameter at all.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Save channelised IQ around a frequency.' It clearly distinguishes IQ capture from audio recording and signal analysis, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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 implies usage through format guidance, noting that 'cu8' suits rtl_433 / most tools and that the 250 kS/s default suits rtl_433. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as record_audio, spectrum_snapshot, or analyze_signal.

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