civ_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames this as a pure construction operation that produces hex and does not send it. It does not discuss error handling or validation, but for a simple frame builder this is a minor omission rather than a misleading gap.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose and then uses a compact argument list. Every sentence adds practical value, and the examples are dense but not padded.

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 tool with no annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, this definition is complete: all parameters are covered, the output's intended consumer is named, and the relationship to civ_freq is explained. The exact CI-V frame framing is not spelled out, but the 'ready for send_hex' contract makes that unnecessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete hex examples, domain conventions, and defaults. The command examples, BCD frequency example, rig address table, and controller default give an agent everything needed to fill the arguments correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build'), a specific resource ('Icom CI-V frame'), and the exact output form ('as hex, ready for send_hex'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like send_hex (which sends), civ_parse (which parses), and cat_build/rotator_build (which build other protocols).

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 establishes the intended pipeline: build a frame, then pass it to send_hex. It also gives an explicit alternative for frequency conversion ('For frequencies use civ_freq'). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use cat_build or rotator_build, but the CI-V-specific framing makes the use case clear.

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