cmw_measure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool waits for completion, arms the instrument, and marks results stale if settings change. Notably, it explains the pitfall of separate calls, adding behavioral nuance beyond a simple 'run measurement'. However, it does not describe timeout behavior, continuous mode, or error conditions.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first defines the operation, the second explains when to use it and a key behavioral caveat.

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 is complex with 7 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the core flow and important behavioral constraints. However, it does not describe what the returned 'results' contain or any prerequisites like prior configuration. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail on return value and preconditions would improve completeness.

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 57%, and the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. It does contextualize timeout_s via 'wait for the instrument to report the acquisition finished' and mentions stale results, but does not explain host, port, or meas_instance beyond what the schema provides. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 and resource: 'Run a complete measurement' and clearly outlines the sequence (arm, wait, fetch). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmw_meas_trigger and cmw_meas_fetch_power by explicitly recommending this over separate trigger/fetch calls.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Prefer this over separate trigger and fetch calls' and explains why (INITiate returns immediately, so a separate fetch may read the previous acquisition). This provides clear usage context and differentiates from alternatives.

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