sdr_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core semantic of the boolean (start vs stop) via the play/stop analogy, but says nothing about permissions, whether stopping is reversible, error behavior, or the runtime state implications of toggling the source.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes nothing and places the action and its parameter semantics before the explanatory parenthetical.

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 one-parameter toggle with an output schema available for return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The only shortfall is the absence of any behavioral or usage context beyond the bare operation.

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% and the single 'on' parameter has only a type, so the description must compensate. It does so fully by mapping on=True to start and on=False to stop, which is the essential meaning an agent needs.

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 ('start/stop the SDR source in SDR++') and clarifies the operation with the '(the play/stop button)' analogy. It distinguishes itself from sdr_launch implicitly by implying toggling of an already-available source, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 start/stop framing implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sdr_launch or how it interacts with sdr_status. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.

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