cmw_lte_get_connection_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it retrieves the connection state. It does not explain read-only behavior, potential side effects (e.g., triggering a measurement), or what happens if no UE is connected. The bare 'get' verb implies read-only, but no additional traits are disclosed.

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 that is concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but it could benefit from including parameter context without becoming bloated, so it earns near-perfect marks for structure.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks any context about the host/port parameters, what the returned state looks like, and how this relates to other LTE tools. The minimal statement is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in a broader workflow.

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 has two parameters (host, port) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero explanation of how these parameters affect the operation. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not mention host or port at all, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of these fields.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('LTE UE connection state'), and provides concrete examples of the state values (ATT, CONN, IDLE), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from broader tools like cmw_get_status or cmw_get_full_state by focusing on the LTE UE connection state specifically.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmw_lte_get_ue_info or cmw_get_status. The description only states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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