cat_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool parses specific formats and handles error answers (?; E; O), which is a behavioral trait – users know it can return errors. It doesn't mention side effects (likely none), but for a decode tool this is sufficient. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), so no contradiction flag.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the main verb and object. It lists details (FA/FB to MHz, MD to mode name) that are useful but could be considered slightly dense. It earns its place with no fluff, though the parameter details could be trimmed. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 moderate complexity with 2 params and an output schema exists. The description covers what the tool does and where the input comes from. It doesn't fully explain the flavor parameter's effect on parsing, but with the output schema present, return values are covered. The main gap is the flavor semantics, so a 4 is suitable.

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 compensate. It explains the 'reply' parameter implicitly: it is the text returned by query_text, which gives semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, the 'flavor' parameter is not explained in the description (though the schema has an enum), so there is a small gap. This is otherwise good compensation.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Decode ';'-terminated text CAT replies.' It lists what the tool parses (rig id, FA/FB to MHz, etc.) and the answer types, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'civ_parse' and 'rotator_parse'. It is not a tautology and provides concrete details.

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 says to pass 'the text returned by query_text', which gives a clear caller context. It implies this is the decode step for text CAT replies but does not explicitly say 'when not to use' it or mention alternatives like 'civ_parse' for binary protocols. Still, the explicit connection to query_text provides good guidance.

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