cmw_get_signal_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., connection), return format, or any operational caveats. For a simple getter, more context could be expected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it well-structured for quick parsing.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the meaning of 'signal path scenario', what the return value represents, or how host/port are used. While the brevity matches a getter, it leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'host' or 'port' parameters. Their purpose (likely connection settings) is not explained, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond bare type names. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 'Get current GPRF signal path scenario' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current GPRF signal path scenario'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cmw_set_signal_path (setter) and cmw_get_full_state (broader state). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The description does not help the agent choose between this and similar getters like cmw_rf_route_get.

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