cmw_wlan_trigger

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 states that the tool triggers a measurement without describing side effects, asynchronous behavior, required prior state, or whether it returns results. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely starts a measurement process.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key verb and object. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and usage context, so it does not fully earn its place. It is concise but under-specified.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Given this complexity, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the trigger does beyond the name, what happens after triggering, whether there are return values, or how the parameters relate to the measurement. It needs substantially more context to be useful.

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 does not mention any parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Host and port remain completely undocumented, and the meaning of meas_instance is left to the schema's minimal note. The description 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 states a specific action ('Trigger') and a specific resource ('WLAN multi-evaluation measurement'), which distinguishes it from generic measurement triggers and other technology-specific triggers (e.g., cmw_meas_trigger, cmw_lte_meas_trigger). However, 'multi-evaluation measurement' is somewhat ambiguous and does not clarify what is being evaluated, making it slightly less clear than a fully specified description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmw_wlan_set_trigger or cmw_wlan_trigger_catalog. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., configuration steps) or whether this tool should be followed by fetch operations. The context is implied by the tool name and sibling list, but not explicitly stated.

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