browser

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses accumulation of text since last clear, newline semantics for lost-and-regained signals, the patch requirement, graceful fallback on stock fldigi, and receive-only safety. This is far beyond a basic capability statement.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then operations, then compatibility. No word is wasted, though the waterfall/left-panel analogy is secondary; it earns its place by grounding the tool in the UI.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return payload, behavior quirks, prerequisites, and error behavior. It is missing only minor details such as the exact response for clear/available, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and operation has no enum, so the description must supply meaning. It does: it enumerates channels, clear, and available operations and details the channels result shape and accumulation behavior. It leaves clear/available outcomes slightly underspecified, but the names plus context are enough for an agent to operate.

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 tool as fldigi's Signal Browser over XML-RPC and explains that it returns stations locked by the decoder bank with decoded text, plus the operations available. This is a clear function-resource pairing, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like signal_hunt or modem.

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?

It gives helpful context: suitable for PSK/RTTY/CW, needs a patched fldigi, is receive-only, and is meant for signals too weak for the waterfall. It implies when to use it, but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond 'receive only'.

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