cmw_gen_configure_arb

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 only states the action and mode values, but does not mention whether the change takes effect immediately, requires a trigger, or impacts current waveform playback, which are relevant operational details.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumeration adds immediate 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?

For a simple configuration tool with no output schema and only one meaningful enum parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits any mention of host/port semantics, prerequisites, or behavioral effects, so it falls short of fully equipping an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 33% (1 of 3 parameters). The description adds the enumeration 'continuous/single' for the repetition parameter, but host and port are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The low coverage is not compensated.

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 configures ARB waveform playback mode and lists the two possible modes (continuous/single). It identifies a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools like cmw_gen_load_arb and cmw_gen_output_on/off are distinct enough in name and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmw_gen_load_arb or cmw_gen_output_on/off. The context of needing a loaded ARB waveform or output state is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites.

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