get_network_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned data (SSID, IP, signal strength, device type), which matters here because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting whether it reports only the active connection or fails when offline.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields parenthesized after. Zero filler.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by naming the four fields. It would be complete at 5 if it clarified behavior when disconnected or how it differs from the narrower network siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes inputs.

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 ('Get current network connection status') and enumerates the payload (WiFi SSID, IP, signal strength, device type). It's clear on its own, but it doesn't distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_ip_addresses, list_wifi_networks, or get_bluetooth_status.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'current' — an agent can infer this is a point-in-time snapshot versus the enumerating siblings, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_ip_addresses or list_wifi_networks. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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