cmw_query_options

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 disclosure. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it requires a prior connection, what the response contains, or whether it has any side effects.

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 with no filler or redundancy. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which prevents a higher score.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves many gaps: it does not explain the returned data, the meaning of host and port, or the operational context. This is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no structured documentation.

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 input schema has two parameters (host, port) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention these parameters at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without any hints about parameter formats, defaults, or required values.

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 ('Query') and a clear resource ('installed hardware and software options'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_status or get_capabilities, though it does not explicitly differentiate from potentially overlapping tools.

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 (e.g., whether a connection must be established first). No context or exclusions are given.

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