cmw_set_dl_channel

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the tool name. The destructiveHint=false annotation already indicates it is non-destructive, but the description does not clarify side effects, required instrument state, or any constraints.

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 short sentence, making it concise, but it lacks any structural elements like separate sections or bullet points. It is adequate in length but not optimally front-loaded for 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 tool is one of many CMW commands, the description omits critical context such as the fact that it sets the downlink channel for the wireless test set, whether it requires an active connection, or how the channel number is specified. The output schema exists but is not shown in the description, so the return value is unexplained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters. However, it provides no information about 'alias' or 'params_json'. Their purposes remain entirely opaque, forcing the agent to guess.

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] 设置下行信道号' clearly indicates the tool sets the downlink channel number on a CMW instrument. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cmw_set_ul_channel' which sets the uplink 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions that warrant using this tool over other CMW settings tools.

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