cmw_gen_set_frequency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Set frequency') but does not clarify whether a connection is required, what happens on out-of-range frequencies, whether the change affects current output, or what the tool returns. 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely bare. It omits necessary context about connection prerequisites, the role of host/port, expected return values, and potential side effects. The description is minimally viable but clearly incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied situations.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only frequency_hz is described). The description merely repeats 'frequency in Hz' which is already in the schema, and it says nothing about 'host' or 'port' parameters. It adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('GPRF generator output frequency') with units ('Hz'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmw_gen_set_level (sets level) and cmw_gen_output_on/off (controls output).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any relationship to other generator setup tools (e.g., setting frequency before enabling output) or any prerequisites. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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