rsid

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the patch requirement, states 'Receive only,' and explains that on stock 4.2.13 it says so instead of failing. However, it does not describe side effects of the 'clear' operation or detail the return format for all operations (e.g., 'available'), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then provides operational details and prerequisites. It is concise and well-structured, with no redundant sentences, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry the load. It covers purpose, operations, prerequisites, and stock behavior, and even specifies the output format for hits as {utc, mode, hz}. However, it does not fully describe return values for all operations (e.g., 'available') or the exact effect of 'clear', making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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 schema has one 'operation' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description lists the possible values (hits, clear, available), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on what each operation does or its expected behavior, so the semantics are only partially defined.

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 reports RSID bursts as {utc, mode, hz} entries since the last clear, and lists the operations (hits, clear, available). It distinguishes the tool's role in monitoring passband modes without switching the modem, giving it a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from a sibling tool, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explains when to use it: when fldigi's RSID is in notify-only mode, so the current modem keeps decoding. It also mentions the patch prerequisite and the behavior on stock. However, it does not reference alternative tools or provide explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the decision partially to the agent.

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