cmw_wlan_fetch_all

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. It only lists what data is fetched, but does not mention any operational context such as requiring a prior trigger, whether results are cached or live, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a read 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 with no filler words. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, few parameters), the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations, incomplete parameter explanations, and no mention of usage prerequisites mean the agent may not have enough context to use the tool correctly in all situations. It is not completely self-sufficient.

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 only 33% (only meas_instance has a description). The tool description adds no information about the parameters host, port, or meas_instance. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without clarity on how to use these parameters beyond generic connection context.

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 tool fetches all WLAN results and lists specific metrics (power, EVM, spectrum flatness, freq error), making it distinguishable from sibling tools that fetch individual metrics. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'all WLAN results' are 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 name and description imply this is the comprehensive fetch tool among siblings like cmw_wlan_fetch_power and cmw_wlan_fetch_evm. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over individual fetches, or mention any prerequisites like triggering a measurement first.

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