cmw_lte_get_ue_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool 'gets' information, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose return format, whether a connection is required, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal detail beyond the name.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is too sparse to be fully informative, though the structure itself is acceptable.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what UE information is returned, what host/port parameters do, or how this tool fits among many LTE-related siblings. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool.

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 zero description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving the agent to guess how host and port are used.

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 states the tool retrieves UE information and explicitly mentions connection state, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling cmw_lte_get_connection_state, but the broader scope is implied by 'including connection state'.

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 like cmw_lte_get_connection_state. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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