Transmit a tone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the transmission continues until explicitly stopped, requires an environment variable, and has legal/safety constraints. It doesn't describe the return format, but the output schema exists and the safety-critical behavior is well disclosed.

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 and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by the critical stop condition, the required environment variable, and the safety warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive, continuous-transmission tool, the description covers the essential operational context: how to stop it, the required permission flag, and the safety constraint. The output schema exists so return values don't need explanation. It could mention what happens on error or whether the tool returns immediately, but the critical context is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds context for the overall operation (offset from LO) but doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Transmit'), a specific resource ('continuous single-tone carrier using the FPGA's DDS generators'), and a distinguishing detail ('at an offset from the TX local oscillator'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like sdr_transmit_iq and sdr_transmit_waveform by specifying the single-tone DDS nature.

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 explicitly says when to use it (transmit a continuous single tone) and gives critical usage constraints: it transmits until stopped, requires SDR_MCP_ALLOW_TX=1, and must only be used into a dummy load or licensed frequencies. It also names the sibling sdr_tx_disable as the stop mechanism, providing clear routing to the complementary tool.

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