cmw_cls

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

The description is consistent with the annotation destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive status clearing. However, it does not elaborate on what specific status registers are cleared (e.g., error queue, operation status) or any side effects, which would add value beyond the annotation.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good for front-loading purpose. However, it is too brief given the missing parameter documentation and lacks structure to convey additional details. It does not fully earn its place as it omits critical information.

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?

With 2 undocumented parameters and no explanation of return values (despite having an output schema), the description is incomplete. It only states the basic function, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (alias, params_json) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain their purpose or usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent unable to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 "[CMW] 清除仪器状态" clearly states the verb (clear) and resource (instrument status), and the prefix "cmw_" distinguishes it from the sibling tool "cls" which may be generic. It unambiguously identifies the tool's action.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool over alternatives like "cls" or other status-related tools, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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