cat_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses the ';' terminator, the line_ending='NONE' usage, the empty-value-means-read convention, and family-specific frequency formatting (11 vs 9 digits). It does not cover edge cases like unknown commands, but the key formatting behaviors are clearly exposed.

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 well organized: purpose in the first sentence, a helpful common-command reference, then a clean Args section. Nothing feels redundant, and the most important information is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 4-parameter builder with no schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete: it covers all inputs, the output terminator, family variants, and how to pair it with query_text/send_text. The only minor gap is not explicitly listing alternatives/exclusions, but the parameter coverage and usage context are strong enough for correct invocation.

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 fully compensate, and it does. It explains all four parameters: command is two letters, value is an empty-read or set-append, frequency_mhz is formatted per family, and flavor is the convention choice with defaults. The MD2 example adds useful concrete 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Build a ';'-terminated text CAT command" for Kenwood, Elecraft, and Yaesu rigs. It also clarifies the relationship to companion tools by saying the result is for query_text or send_text, distinguishing it from parsing or CIV-building siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when constructing a CAT text command to pass to query_text or send_text. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as civ_build or cat_parse, so the agent must infer the boundary from siblings and context.

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