cmw_rf_route_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key limitation: 'The connector and converter are not readable from the instrument, so the path is only known if it was set here.' It also implies a non-destructive read operation via 'Report', though it does not describe return format or failure modes.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding only a relevant caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain parameter semantics or what the returned 'routing scenario' and 'path' look like. The caveat is useful, but the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the roles of host, port, application, or meas_instance. It only says 'an application' abstractly, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly set parameters beyond the schema's type/enum constraints.

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 ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource ('an application's routing scenario and the path this server last applied to it'). This distinguishes it from the sibling setter cmw_rf_route_set and other getters like cmw_get_signal_path.

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 this tool is used to read routing state, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions a caveat about the path only being known if set here, but does not compare against alternative getter tools or state preconditions.

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