cmw_meas_configure_spectrum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what parameters are configured but does not disclose side effects: whether it overwrites existing settings, if it requires an active connection, whether it immediately applies, or if a trigger is needed afterward. The word 'Configure' implies a write operation but lacks critical behavioral context.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the configurable settings. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward configuration tool.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavioral context. It does explain the core purpose and parameters, but it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection), post-configuration steps (e.g., triggering a measurement), or default behaviors for omitted parameters. For a tool with six parameters and no required fields, this is a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions). The description adds a high-level mapping of parameters by naming 'centre frequency, span, resolution and video bandwidth', which correspond to center_freq_hz, span_hz, rbw_hz, and vbw_hz. However, host and port remain undocumented in both schema and description, and no deeper semantics (e.g., constraints, dependencies) are provided.

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 'Configure' and identifies a precise resource: 'GPRF spectrum measurement'. It lists the key settings (centre frequency, span, resolution, video bandwidth), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cmw_meas_configure_power or cmw_meas_fetch_spectrum.

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 implies its usage context (for setting up spectrum measurements) and distinguishes it by 'GPRF spectrum', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., cmw_meas_set_frequency for simple frequency changes) or mention prerequisites like needing a connection first. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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