rotator_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it explains that read actions return replies immediately, move actions return nothing, and that the agent should confirm by reading position afterward. It also frames the tool as a command builder rather than an executor, which sets correct expectations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational value. The action list is dense but efficiently encodes command syntax and reply behavior without unnecessary prose.

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 builder tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, action semantics, protocol commands, and response expectations. It could add explicit ranges for azimuth/elevation, but the provided protocol syntax and output schema presence make it sufficiently complete 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 compensate. It maps action enum values to their wire commands (C, C2, B, M<az>, W<az> <el>, X1..X4), thereby giving meaning to azimuth, elevation, and speed parameters. It does not formally describe parameter ranges, but the protocol syntax is sufficiently illustrative.

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 Yaesu GS-232A/B rotator command' for send_text or query_text. The action list with protocol codes makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling builders like civ_build and cat_build.

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?

It clearly states the target functions (send_text with CR, query_text) and gives practical guidance, such as reading position after move actions because moves reply nothing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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