Jt Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful nuance that values reflect current live state and that results are per-instance, but says nothing about behavior when no WSJT-X is running (empty result vs. error) or about how multiple instances are keyed. Output schema offloads the return-shape burden, keeping this at a 3.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering scope and every returned field, with no filler or repetition. The colon-list structure makes it scannable.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey scope and freshness, which it does. The minor gap is what the agent should expect when the named instance isn't running or when zero instances are active.

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% and the single `instance` parameter is documented in the schema with an example Id format and default-to-all behavior. The description itself adds no parameter guidance beyond the implicit 'each ... ' framing, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (each running WSJT-X instance) and enumerates the exact fields observed — dial frequency/band, mode, DX call and grid, Tx state, own call/grid. That is a concrete, verifiable statement of what the tool does. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like jt_decodes or jt_heard, so differentiation is inferred from the field list rather than stated.

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 word "now" signals this is a live snapshot rather than a history/log query, which implicitly positions it against jt_decodes and jt_heard. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied.

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