cmw_lte_meas_fetch_evm

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states only that results are fetched, but does not mention whether a measurement must be triggered beforehand, whether it is a read-only operation, or what happens if no measurement is available. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple fetch tool, though it sacrifices substance for brevity. It earns a high score for structure but not a 5 because it skips valuable context that could be added without bloat.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the EVM measurement results contain, any dependencies on other tools (e.g., cmw_lte_meas_trigger), or typical usage context. It does none of this, leaving the tool functionally ambiguous for an agent trying to decide how to interact with it.

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 schema lists 'host' and 'port' with only basic types and no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, so it adds no meaning about their purpose or format. The agent receives no help beyond the parameter names, which could be ambiguous in a network measurement context.

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 'Fetch' and a clear resource 'LTE EVM (Error Vector Magnitude) measurement results', which distinguishes it from sibling fetch tools like cmw_lte_meas_fetch_power or cmw_lte_meas_fetch_aclr. It is not as explicit as a tool that explicitly names alternatives, but the resource is specific enough to make the purpose 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 the many sibling fetch tools (e.g., cmw_lte_meas_fetch_all, cmw_lte_meas_fetch_power). The description gives no context about prerequisites such as triggering a measurement first or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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