cmw_discover

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavior. It only says 'scan' and gives a port, without disclosing whether the scan is read-only, how long it might take, what side effects (if any) occur, or what the output looks like. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word adds value, with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should explain what the scan returns or how results are presented. It doesn't, leaving some uncertainty. However, the parameter schema covers the inputs well, so it's minimally adequate.

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 already describes all three parameters with defaults and meanings, so the description adds little beyond confirming the port. Since coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not provide additional semantic value.

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 action ('Scan'), the target ('CMW500 instruments on the network'), and a distinctive detail (port 5025), which separates it from sibling tools like cmw_connect or cmw_identify. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 context of scanning for instruments is evident, implying use before connecting or configuring. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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