cmw_wlan_fetch_evm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Fetch,' which is a weak indicator of read-only behavior. It does not disclose return format, whether a prior trigger is required, or any potential 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, but it is too minimal to be considered appropriately sized. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description omits essential context, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of related measurement setup tools, the description does not explain the WLAN measurement lifecycle or return behavior. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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), and the tool description does not explain host or port. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource 'WLAN EVM (Error Vector Magnitude) measurement results,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cmw_wlan_fetch_power or cmw_wlan_fetch_frequency_error. The WLAN prefix differentiates it from the LTE EVM fetch tool.

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 like cmw_wlan_fetch_all, nor any prerequisites such as configuring a WLAN standard, setting frequency, or triggering a measurement before fetching. The description implies usage but gives no context.

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