connect_wifi

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the mutating/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens to an existing connection, whether credentials are persisted for future sessions, what error is returned on wrong password, or whether a delay/async behavior should be expected.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

For a network-mutating tool with no output schema, the description should mention at least failure behavior (unknown SSID, bad password) and what a successful connection implies. None of this is present, leaving the agent to guess at the outcome.

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 100%, with both ssid (required) and password (optional for open/saved networks) documented in schema. The description's mention of SSID is consistent with the schema but adds no new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Connect to a WiFi network') plus the identifier used (SSID), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as disconnect_wifi, toggle_wifi, or list_wifi_networks, but the name-plus-verb combination already separates it.

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 versus toggle_wifi (which may also establish a connection) or when to call list_wifi_networks first to discover SSIDs. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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