Transmit status

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context: the tool remains usable while transmitting disabled and reports whether a cyclic buffer is still running. These details go beyond annotation-provided facts.

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 compact: one sentence lists all the reported state items without filler, and a second sentence adds an important behavioral note. It is well front-loaded and occupies no unnecessary words.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. The only missing piece is a comparison with overlapping sibling tools, which is covered in the usage dimension.

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 schema provides complete descriptions of the single optional parameter, so the description adds nothing about parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action and resource ('Report what the transmitter is doing') and lists specific state items, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like sdr_tx_chain_state, which may also report transmit-related state.

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 guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The note about being 'always available' is a behavioral trait, not a routing instruction, so the agent gets no direct help choosing between this tool and similar status or state tools.

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