spectrum_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 'max-hold' detection means short bursts count and defines 'duty' output semantics, but leaves out permission needs, rate limits, the meaning of the top/seconds/fft_size/threshold_db parameters, and any failure modes. Valuable domain details are present but incomplete.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and outputs, with the optional retune and the duty definition following. No fluff, though the duty definition could be integrated more smoothly into the first sentence.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should clarify what seconds, top, fft_size, and threshold_db control, and perhaps what the table columns are. As it stands, an agent cannot confidently choose values or interpret results.

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 five parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only tangentially mentions 'frequency' (optional retune) and 'duty' (an output term, not a parameter). It does not explain top, seconds, fft_size, or threshold_db at all, falling well short of compensating for the coverage 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Capture the full SDR++ passband, detect signals') and describes the two outputs (table + image). It is clearly distinct from siblings like band_sweep or analyze_signal, though it doesn't name any 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus band_sweep (which likely sweeps multiple bands) or analyze_signal. The optional retune hint is the only usage cue, and it doesn't explain why or when to retune first.

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