cmw_meas_fetch_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch results' without revealing potential side effects, required setup, whether a measurement must be active, or what happens if no results are available. The description adds little beyond the tool 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. It is not verbose, but it is also somewhat under-specified. It earns its place but could be expanded with additional useful context without becoming unwieldy.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, parameter dependencies, or how this tool fits into the measurement workflow. The complexity of the schema and the presence of many similar sibling tools call for more context than this one-liner provides.

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 50%: statistic and all_statistics have descriptions, but host and port do not. The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented host and port parameters, nor does it add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states. The mention of current/average/max/min mirrors the enum values without explaining them further.

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 fetches GPRF power measurement results and lists the statistics available (current, average, max, min). This is a specific verb-resource pairing, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling fetch tools (e.g., cmw_bt_fetch_power) to distinguish when this should be used for GPRF vs other technologies, though the GPRF label provides some distinction.

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 any prerequisites such as configuring or triggering a power measurement. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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