flipper_subghz_rx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a read-only, non-destructive nature via the word 'listen' and the context of returning decoded output. However, it lacks details on timeout behavior, what happens if no signal is detected, or whether the operation blocks. It is sufficient but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only relevant information. No superfluous words or repetition of schema fields. It earns its place.

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 receive tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, gives common frequencies, and implies a temporal scope. The output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed there. However, it lacks explicit statements about no-signal results or operational prerequisites, which would round out the context.

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 adds meaningful context by listing common frequency values (433920000, 315000000, 868350000) and specifying the unit (Hz). However, it does not explain the 'seconds' parameter beyond 'a few seconds', nor does it mention default values or acceptable ranges. The description adds some value but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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's function: 'Listen for Sub-GHz signals on a frequency (Hz) for a few seconds and return decoded output.' It uses a specific verb ('listen') and identifies the resource (Sub-GHz signals) and the action (return decoded output). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flipper_subghz_tx_file, which transmits rather than receives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention flipper_subghz_tx_file for transmitting, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is implied but not stated explicitly, so the agent receives no direct support for tool selection.

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