cmw_set_bandwidth

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

Annotations only indicate non-destructive behavior. The description adds the format of the bandwidth value (B100=20MHz, etc.) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether a connection is required, if the tool modifies persistent state, or rate limits. With minimal annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses it.

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, which is very concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., not breaking down the purpose and usage). It serves as a basic statement but does not organize information for quick scanning.

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 low schema coverage (0%) and presence of an output schema not mentioned, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., format of params_json) or what the return value contains. For a simple set operation, the description is barely adequate.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters ('alias' and 'params_json'). The description only explains the bandwidth format, but does not indicate that this value should be passed via 'params_json' or how to structure the JSON. The schema defaults are present but no semantic guidance is added beyond the schema.

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 action ('设置' meaning 'Set') and the resource ('LTE信道带宽' meaning 'LTE channel bandwidth'). It also provides the specific format (RB number format with mappings to MHz), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cmw_set_band or cmw_set_dl_channel.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The context from sibling names implies a specific scope (setting bandwidth), but no direct usage instructions are provided.

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