sdr_tune

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, yet it discloses almost nothing: no mention of permissions, whether retuning interrupts active recording/decoding, or persistence of settings. It only lists mode values and bandwidth examples.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the mode enumeration and bandwidth examples. Two dense sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical mode/bandwidth lists are packed together.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers mode and bandwidth adequately but omits the format/units for the one required parameter ('frequency') and any behavioral or failure context. Adequate but with clear gaps for a core tuning tool.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates mode values (FM=NFM, WFM, AM, DSB, USB, LSB, CW, RAW) and gives concrete bandwidth_hz examples tied to each mode. It never explains the required 'frequency' parameter's format or units, leaving a notable gap.

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 ('Tune') and resource ('SDR++'s Radio VFO') plus the outcome ('so the user hears the frequency'). The action is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like band_sweep or spectrum_snapshot, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named against a large sibling set (identify_frequency, analyze_signal, band_sweep, record_audio). The phrase 'so the user hears the frequency' hints at intent but gives no conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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