Is the transmitter live?

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

This description goes above beyond the annotations by revealing that the board boots in ENSM 'fdd' state with TX synthesiser running and only 10 dB attenuation, so TX is live from power-on even without DAC data, emitting LO leakage. This nuanced behavioral context—including what the tool shows (ENSM mode, TX LO powerdown, attenuators) and the statement that it says plainly whether anything is being emitted—is exactly the context that helps an agent interpret the result correctly.

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 3 sentences, well-structured: it immediately states the purpose, then explains the default behavior, then what the tool shows, and finally mentions the sibling tool. Every sentence carries meaningful information, though the second sentence could be slightly trimmed without losing critical context.

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?

Given the low complexity (a read-only status query) and an output schema for return formatting, the description is complete enough: it tells what data will be shown and why it matters, and it links to the destructive sibling for action. The only minor gap is not a mentioning the relationship with `sdr_tx_status`, which could lead to some confusion among sibling tools.

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 only parameter has 100% schema coverage with its description already stating that 'markdown' is for reading and 'json' for structured output. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the required work.

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 clearly states the verb 'Report' and the resource 'AD9361 transmit chain', explaining exactly what the tool does and what it exposes. It also includes the important scope that it tells whether anything is actually being emitted, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'sdr_tx_tool_status', leaving the agent to infer which one to prefer.

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 description provides context about the always-on boot behavior and explicitly points to 'sdr_tx_disable' when action is required, giving some direction on when to use this tool as a diagnostic step. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling 'sdr_tx_status' or give clear why/why-not conditions, so the general usage guidance is more implied than explicit.

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