cmw_opt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of side effects, authorization requirements, or what is destroyed). It merely confirms a read operation without elaboration.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It is not structured with any additional details, but it is not verbose either.

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 complexity of CMW instrument control and the existence of an output schema, the description is too vague. It does not clarify the scope of options listed, whether parameters affect the result, or how to use the tool in a measurement workflow.

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 0% (no descriptions for the two parameters 'alias' and 'params_json'). The description does not explain what these parameters do, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 it reads the instrument options list ('读取仪器选项列表'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling CMW tools like cmw_memory_catalog or cmw_query_connection_state.

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, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states the action without context.

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