legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions deprecation and the existence of current equivalents, but does not state whether operations are read-only or mutating, what side effects they have, how errors surface, or any operational constraints. This is insufficient for a tool that dispatches many different legacy methods.

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 with its core purpose: deprecated methods. The mapping list is dense but every mapping earns its place by pointing to the correct alternative tool. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite the useful mappings, the description is incomplete. It never explicitly states that the 'operation' parameter selects the legacy method, does not describe how to pass values, does not list return behavior, and lacks any guidance for invalid or unknown operation names. An agent would still need to infer how to construct a valid call.

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 the description must compensate. It does partially by listing valid operation names (get/set_sideband, rsid, etc.), which helps populate the 'operation' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'value' parameter at all, nor how it applies to set operations, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a collection of deprecated fldigi methods and explains why it exists ('kept so the whole catalog is reachable'). It does not explicitly state a verb like 'invoke' or 'call', but the mapping list makes the resource and behavior recognizable and differentiates it from current equivalents.

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 current equivalents should be preferred and then provides a direct mapping for each legacy method to its modern counterpart (e.g., 'rsid -> controls toggle_rxid'). This gives an agent precise guidance on when not to use this tool and which sibling to use instead.

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