cmw_gen_output_off

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and a behavioral outcome ('safe state'), but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or any state changes beyond turning off RF output. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It effectively communicates the core action and context in minimal space.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits any details about prerequisites (e.g., connection), what happens to the generator's configured settings, or how the safe state is indicated. With no annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough for robust tool selection and invocation.

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 provides only host and port with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters or explain that they identify the instrument connection, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Disable' and resource 'GPRF generator RF output', adding 'safe state' to clarify intent. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tool cmw_gen_output_on as the inverse operation.

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 phrase '(safe state)' implies use when a safe condition is needed, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus cmw_gen_output_on or other tools. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so usage is only implied.

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