set_rf

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

The description discloses behavior far beyond the annotations: it preserves RF on/off and modulation, clears display offsets and reference modes, disables sweeps, enables automatic attenuation, mutes RF during the change, and warns that level_dbm is a generator setting under scaled I/Q. This is exactly the state-changing detail an agent needs.

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 core purpose and ranges are front-loaded in the first sentence, with side effects following in short, dense sentences. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is 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 two-parameter setter with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly complete, covering ranges, state effects, and a scaled-I/Q caveat. It omits out-of-range error behavior and whether the call blocks during RF muting, which are minor 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: usable ranges for frequency (250 kHz–4 GHz) and level (−135 to +20 dBm) are given for both parameters. It adds a semantic caveat for level_dbm, though it does not restate units or the exact meaning of frequency_hz beyond the implied Hz.

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?

It names a specific action (set a fixed carrier and level) with precise ranges, so the resource and scope are unmistakable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling set_rf_output, leaving the agent to guess which of the two RF-setting tools applies.

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?

Usage is implied through the operating ranges and the note that sweeping is disabled, which signals this is a static single-point setup. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus set_rf_output or scpi_write, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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