cmw_check_limits

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Check' implies a read-only validation, but the description does not state whether the tool returns a pass/fail result, throws errors for undefined limits, or if it has side effects. It also does not clarify what 'defined limits' means in practice or how violations are reported. This lack of behavioral detail leaves significant uncertainty.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Check' and immediately conveys the tool's core function. Every word earns its place, and there is no padding or unnecessary detail.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully explain the tool's behavior or return format. The one-parameter input is simple, but the absence of any information about the result (e.g., boolean pass/fail, list of violated limits, error behavior) makes the tool incomplete for an agent that needs to know what to expect after invocation. The sibling tools for defining limits are not referenced, so the operational context is missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a single 'measurements' parameter described as 'Dictionary of parameter:value pairs to check'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The schema's description is adequate, though it does not specify the expected value types or how limits are matched to parameters.

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 'Check measurement values against defined limits' clearly states the action (check) and resource (measurement values against defined limits). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmw_define_limit and cmw_list_limits by focusing on the checking action rather than defining or listing limits. However, it does not specify what the check returns (pass/fail, exceptions), leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that limits must already be defined (since it checks against 'defined limits'), but it does not explicitly mention prerequisite steps like using cmw_define_limit first, nor does it describe scenarios where this tool is preferred over fetching raw measurements directly. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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