highlight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'clear' sends an invalid colour, 'clear_all' cancels all highlights, and notes a performance cap of ~100 highlights to avoid impacting decoding. This goes beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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-structured with bullet points for operations. It is concise but includes essential details like color formats and performance caution. Slightly longer than minimal, but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral and parameter information. It explains three operations, color formats, and a performance constraint, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains parameters for 'set' (callsign, background, foreground, highlight_last) and color formats (name, hex, RGB). For 'clear' it mentions callsign, and for 'clear_all' no params. It does not explain the 'instance' parameter, which is a minor gap.

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 states the tool colours or clears a callsign in the Band Activity panel with no transmit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the UI panel and clarifying it does not transmit, which is important given siblings like 'transmit' and 'wsjtx_call'.

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 provides explicit guidance for each operation (set, clear, clear_all) and acceptable color formats. It includes a performance caution about keeping highlights modest. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings.

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