cmw_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not mention whether an active connection is required, what specific status fields are returned, or how errors are handled. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a no-annotation 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 concise sentence, but it omits essential details and is under-specified. While not verbose, it does not effectively structure information for an agent, as it lacks any elaboration or sections.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, dependencies, or how this tool fits into the broader CMW workflow, making it inadequate for confident use.

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 input schema defines two parameters (host and port) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and requirements of these parameters.

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 identifies the resource as 'CMW500 connection and configuration status', making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'cmw_get_full_state', which likely overlaps in functionality, so it falls short of a top score.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply states the action without contextualizing it among the many related CMW tools, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for selection.

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