modem

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only lists operations like get/set/inc_carrier and search_up/down without explaining side effects, state changes, return values, or preconditions. The 'set (value=mode name)' example hints at mutation but leaves the behavior largely undisclosed.

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 purpose, followed by a dense but readable list of operations and examples. It contains no filler, though the flat prose list could be structured more clearly as separate entries.

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 large number of operations, two opaque parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits operation-specific semantics, return values, and required arguments beyond a couple of examples.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coveragewing, but the description compensates partially by listing valid operation values and giving examples for 'value' (e.g., 'BPSK31', id). However, it does not define the expected type or requirement of 'value' for every operation, so the parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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's domain: fldigi operating mode and modem settings, then enumerates the supported operations. It is specific enough to distinguish the modem tool from siblings like rig or frequency, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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 about when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools such as rig, controls, or frequency. The operation list implies possible sub-actions, but it does not describe situational selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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