cmw_lte_meas_configure

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing settings, requires an active connection, or what it returns. The description is purely functional.

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 that directly states the action and key parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 configuration tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is sparse. It does not explain the setup flow (e.g., use with cmw_lte_meas_trigger and fetch tools), requirements, or effects. Essential operational context is missing.

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 50% (repetition and stat_count have descriptions). The description names these two parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The host and port parameters are completely unexplained, and no usage details are provided for any parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Configure' and identifies the resource as 'LTE multi-evaluation measurement', listing key parameters (subframe count, repetition). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling trigger/fetch tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention that configuration is typically followed by trigger and fetch operations, nor any exclusions.

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