transmit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: keying vs. non-keying operations, callsign requirements, that rx/abort/timing operations are always allowed, and that send auto-returns to receive. This goes well beyond a basic statement of function, though it still omits details like error behavior or state changes from abort/disable_tx.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: an overview, an operations list, a keying-behavior note, and the send auto-return default. It is front-loaded with 'Transmitter control' and the operation list, with no filler or repetition.

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 is complex with many operations, four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover a lot. It covers operation semantics, timing return formats, keying restrictions, and the send default, but leaves unclear the full set of operation-specific value formats, especially for tune, and does not describe response/error behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 compensates by explaining the operation string valuesgcd, including run_macro's value as an id, tx_timing's value as a test string, char_timing's value as a single character, and send's text parameter. It does not fully explain the value parameter for tune or all possible operation values, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 is 'Transmitter control' and enumerates specific operations (tx, tune, rx, abort, etc.), making the resource and available actions explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fldigi_call or tune_to, but the operation list and transmitter focus give sufficient clarity.

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 provides internal guidance about which operations key the transmitter and callsign requirements, but it does not state when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as rig, modem, tune_to, or fldigi_call. There is no explicit 'use this for X, use that for Y' routing, leaving tool-selection guidance mostly absent.

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