cmw_get_full_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's action without explaining what 'full configuration state' includes, whether the response is large, what format it takes, or whether it requires prior connection or has side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does in the fewest words.

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 tool that retrieves 'full configuration state', the description is too sparse. It does not mention return value structure, output size, or any caveats such as connection requirements, making it inadequate given the lack of an output schema and annotations.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'host' and 'port' parameters. It does not explain whether port is the SCPI port, whether host is an IP or hostname, or whether a default port exists, leaving the parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current CMW500 full configuration state'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like cmw_get_status and cmw_get_capabilities by focusing on 'full configuration state', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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_get_status, cmw_get_capabilities, or cmw_query_options. There are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or notes about prerequisites like an active connection.

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