query

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

The description lists available operations, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful specifics on what queries are possible, though it does not cover rate limits or auth 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 concise and front-loaded with the sentence 'Read-only program queries.' However, the list of operations could be formatted for better readability, but it is still clear.

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?

While the description explains what queries are available, it does not specify the format or content of the return values. For a query tool with no output schema, the description could be improved by indicating what each operation returns.

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% coverage (no description) for the only parameter 'operation'. The description compensates by listing all valid operation values, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 'Read-only program queries' and lists specific operations like program, qso_count, next_serial, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like status, diagnostics, etc., which have different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied as read-only queries for program data, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Sibling tools exist that could overlap (e.g., status, bandmode), but alternatives are not mentioned.

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