cmw_lte_meas_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Trigger... measurement' with no information about blocking behavior, side effects, required prior configuration, or how results are returned. This is effectively no transparency beyond the verb 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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no additional context. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks necessary substance, making it borderline between efficient and inadequate.

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?

The description is far too minimal for the tool's role in a likely measurement workflow. It does not mention the need to configure measurements first, the fetch operations that retrieve results, or any relationship to sibling tools. Even with low complexity, the context is almost completely 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 description coverage is 0% and no parameters are described in the schema or the description. The parameters 'host' and 'port' are present but their meaning or role in triggering the measurement is entirely unexplained. The description offers no compensation for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Trigger') and the resource ('LTE multi-evaluation measurement'), distinguishing it from generic measurement triggers like cmw_meas_trigger and other technology-specific triggers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical workflows. Context signals show sibling tools like cmw_lte_meas_configure and fetch tools, but the description gives no hint of how this trigger fits into the larger measurement sequence.

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