frequency

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists operations. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether setting frequency affects other settings), permissions needed, or error behavior, providing minimal transparency.

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 concise, listing operations in a compact format. It avoids redundancy but could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separating frequency and sideband concerns) for clarity.

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 has 2 parameters, multiple operations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return values, success/failure indicators, and examples, leaving many usage questions unanswered.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'value' is in Hz for set/increment operations and 'USB' or 'LSB' for set_sideband. However, it does not fully clarify the 'operation' parameter's enumerated values or provide format constraints.

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 handles RF frequency and waterfall sideband, listing specific operations (get, set, increment, get_sideband, set_sideband). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rig or controls by focusing on frequency and sideband control.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any conditions for when not to use it. The description simply lists operations without context.

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