cmw_gen_output_on

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose effects such as whether output turns on immediately, any needed prior setup, or how to disable. No behavioral detail is added beyond the name.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action. It is concise and well-structured, though under-specified.

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 description is minimal and lacks context for a new agent: no usage timing, no parameter explanation, no relation to related generator tools like cmw_gen_set_frequency or cmw_gen_output_off. Although the tool is simple, the missing guidance makes it incomplete.

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 has no descriptions for host and port, and the description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no semantic guidance. Host/port are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description fails to clarify their role (e.g., connection target) or optionality.

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 ('Enable') and resource ('GPRF generator RF output'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling cmw_gen_output_off. It states exactly what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., configuring frequency or level first) or that cmw_gen_output_off is the inverse. Usage context is only implied by the name.

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