rotator_parse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states accepted reply formats and the rejection signal, but does not describe exact return shape, handling of unrecognized input, or normalization. The output schema may help, but behavioral details are minimal.

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 focused sentence with substantive examples and no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though the example formats could have been more clearly separated for readability.

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 simple one-parameter parser with an output schema, the description covers the important input formats and the rejection case. It lacks explicit edge-case guidance, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and calling the tool.

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 schema provides no parameter description beyond the name 'reply', so the description compensates by listing concrete valid formats: '+0180', '+0180+0045', and 'AZ=180 EL=045'. This gives meaningful guidance for constructing a valid reply string, though whitespace or trimming rules are not specified.

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 identifies a specific verb ('decode'), a resource ('GS-232 reply'), and the output ('azimuth/elevation degrees' or rejection). The included format examples make it easy to distinguish from sibling parsers like civ_parse and cat_parse.

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 intended context is implied by the GS-232 protocol mention, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as cat_parse or civ_parse. An agent must infer that other parse tools handle different protocols.

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