cmw_wlan_abort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing a non-obvious behavior: releasing the RF converter and warning about resource conflicts. This goes beyond the simple action and adds useful operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the rationale. There is no filler and every word adds value.

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 description covers purpose and a key consequence, which is adequate for tool selection. However, it does not address idempotency (e.g., calling on an already-stopped measurement) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a simple tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is only 33% (only meas_instance has a description). The tool description adds no parameter meaning, leaving host and port entirely undocumented. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Stop a running WLAN measurement') plus a unique side effect ('release its RF converter'), distinguishing it from siblings like trigger or fetch tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 strong contextual guidance by explaining the resource conflict that occurs if a measurement is left in RDY, implying when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so a small gap remains.

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