cmw_gen_set_baseband_mode

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., generator must be off), or impact on other settings. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and includes example values, making it easy to scan.

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 setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but still lacks essential context about when to use it, parameter meanings (especially host/port), and behavioral consequences. The 'etc.' hints at additional modes but does not expose the full enum or any constraints.

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% (only 'mode' has a description), and the tool description itself adds little beyond naming CW/ARB. It does not explain the 'host' and 'port' parameters, which are left undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 ('Set GPRF generator baseband mode') and the specific resource (baseband mode), with examples of valid modes (CW, ARB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmw_gen_set_frequency and cmw_gen_set_level, which target other settings.

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 implies usage when configuring the generator's baseband mode, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. It is longer than a pure tautology but lacks comparison to cmw_gen_load_arb or cmw_gen_configure_arb, which might also affect baseband behavior.

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