cmw_system_all_off

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (turn off) but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether settings are preserved, whether it is reversible, or if it affects all RF paths). This is a significant gap for a system-wide operation.

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 conveys the core action efficiently. Every word is relevant, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks important context. It does not explain the scope of 'all generators and measurements' (e.g., does it include all signal paths? does it reset configurations?), nor does it mention safety implications beyond the vague 'safe state'. The absence of annotations makes this more incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters (host, port) or their purpose. The agent receives no help in understanding that these likely identify the CMW instrument connection. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a specific action (Turn off) targeting a specific resource (all generators and measurements), with an added note about safe state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmw_gen_output_off which affects a single generator.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The term 'safe state' implies an emergency or shutdown scenario, but there is no explicit instruction or comparison to other tools such as cmw_reset or cmw_preset.

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