Wake a device through Lucky

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

Annotations are all false (readOnly, idempotent, destructive), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the device is not found or multiple identifiers are provided. No contradiction with annotations, but insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description should explain what happens on success/failure, whether the device must be pre-registered, and how errors are surfaced. It does none of these. The simple nature of the tool mitigates this slightly, but an agent still lacks critical context for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning by saying the device can be identified by key, name, or MAC, implying these are alternative identifiers. However, it does not specify whether they are mutually exclusive, which one is preferred, or format expectations (e.g., MAC address syntax). It does not clarify if any parameter is required, since none are marked required in 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 ('Send a Wake-on-LAN packet') and the identification method ('by key, name, or MAC'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like lucky_list_wol_devices and lucky_add_wol_device, which have different purposes.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that the device must be previously added or that one might need to list devices first to get a key. The 'identify by key, name, or MAC' implies some prior knowledge but does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools.

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