rig

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses value formats and notes that set_smeter/set_pwrmeter drives fldigi's meter display, but it doesn't describe side effects of set operations, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and backend, then presents a compact operation list. It is dense but not bloated, though the long run-on list could be slightly better structured.

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 two-parameter dispatch tool, the description covers most operation semantics and value formats, which is useful given the sparse schema. But with no output schema, it omits return/confirmation behavior for get operations and gives no error-handling guidance, so it isn't fully complete.

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 explain value semantics for frequency, mode, bandwidths, qsy, and meter operations, which is essential. However, value types for some operations such as get/set_name, get_modes, and get/set_notch remain unspecified.

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 CAT/rig control via flrig/Hamlib/RigCAT and enumerates a concrete set of operations, so an agent can infer what resource it acts on. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like 'frequency' or 'controls', so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Rig (CAT) control' plus the operation list gives clear context for when the tool is relevant. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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