sw_mcs_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the BLER anchors are model predictions ('这是模型预测'), gives typical value ranges, and mentions the self-check of the standard table using 'SE == q_m·R/1024'. This provides meaningful context beyond a simple lookup tool, though it doesn't cover edge cases or 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 four sentences long, well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information, including a caveat and typical ranges. It could be slightly more concise, but it is appropriately sized and not bloated.

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 gives a strong overall context: what the tool does, the nature of the output (standard vs predicted), and typical magnitude expectations. The existence of an output schema covers return values. However, the missing explanation of the `table` parameter is a notable gap for a 2-parameter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `show_bler_anchors` parameter and what it returns (effective SINR and Shannon limit distance). However, it does not explain the `table` parameter at all, leaving its meaning ambiguous. Thus the description adds value for one parameter but not the other.

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 queries the 38.214 MCS/CQI table and BLER model thresholds, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sw_link_performance or sw_sweep_snr by focusing on standard table lookup rather than simulation or analysis.

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 implies usage for manual comparison against public NR link-level curves ('供人工对照公开的 NR 链路级曲线'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is mostly implicit.

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