tune_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that AFC is on and RxID is off by default, explains why RxID is off (to prevent retuning), and explicitly states it does not transmit. This provides a clear safety profile and operational behavior, though it doesn't mention any other side effects or requirements.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose, then details settings, then provides follow-up verification steps. The structure is logical and efficient, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 tuning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what it does, parameter details, behavioral defaults, and how to verify success. It doesn't mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for this type of tool it is adequate.

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 explain all parameters. It does: fldigi_modem with examples, carrier_hz as 'audio carrier', afc default on, rxid default off, and the rationale for rxid. This adds meaning far beyond the schema, which has no parameter descriptions.

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's action: 'Set fldigi to a signal_hunt candidate' and specifies the key settings (modem, carrier, AFC, RxID). It includes concrete examples of modem names and explicitly states 'Does not transmit,' distinguishing it from transmit tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is for signal_hunt candidates and it tells the user to read the result via 'text' and check lock via 'modem get_quality.' It implies when to use it (when tuning to a candidate) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond 'Does not transmit.' However, the follow-up steps are helpful for correct usage.

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