Radio status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) already establish a safe, non-mutating profile. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that this is a reporting/entry-point operation with no configuration changes, and lists the kind of data it returns.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loads the core behavior with 'Report', and efficiently enumerates the report contents. The closing 'Start here.' is short and directive without adding redundancy.

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 a single optional parameter fully documented in the schema, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool reports, what fields are included, and how to begin. No critical guidance is missing.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (response_format), including its enum values, default, and a clear explanation of when to use each format. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description begins with a specific action verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('how the SDR is currently configured'), then enumerates the exact fields covered. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools, such as sdr_tx_chain_state or sdr_board_health, by covering overall SDR configuration rather than a single subsystem.

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 phrase 'Start here' explicitly tells an agent to invoke this tool first when investigating SDR state, providing practical routing guidance. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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