transmit_subghz

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. It explains the app-driven flow, the error screen for region lock, and includes a warning about legal bands and liability. It does not contradict annotations; destructiveHint=true aligns with the real RF transmission warning.

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 dense but well-structured, using emojis and line breaks to highlight warnings and critical details. Every sentence earns its place—covering purpose, mechanism, example, region lock, and legal reminder—without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (RF transmission with safety implications) and missing output schema, the description covers usage, behavior, and error conditions well. However, it does not specify the return value or success/failure indication, which would be useful for an agent to handle responses.

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 burden. It provides an example for 'path' (e.g., '/ext/subghz/Tesla/Tesla_US_AM650.sub') but offers no explanation for 'then_screenshot' (boolean with default true). While the path example is helpful, the omission of the second parameter's meaning leaves a gap.

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 tool's function: 'TRANSMIT a saved Sub-GHz capture over BLE'. It specifies the mechanism (app-driven TX path, no direct RPC) and differentiates from alternatives like direct TX or infrared transmission, as implied by the sibling list.

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 clear context: it's the only way to transmit Sub-GHz (no direct RPC) and mentions region lock and legal band requirements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like transmit_infrared, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over other transmission methods.

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