wifi_get_wpa_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. Apart from 'en clair' (plaintext), it does not disclose that this returns a sensitive secret, whether authentication is required, or any rate-limit/masking behavior. That is a material omission for a secret-retrieval tool.

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 sentence that states the action, the parameter's accepted values, and the return nature (plaintext). No 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the parameter values are given. But as a secret-retrieval tool with no annotations, the description should mention security context or prerequisites; it is minimally 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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by enumerating the allowed band values ('2.4ghz', '5ghz', 'guest'). However, the schema defines no enum, so these values are only in prose and could be missed by an agent relying on structured fields.

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?

Clear specific verb and resource: retrieves the WPA key in plaintext. Distinguishes from sibling wifi_set_wpa_key (setter vs getter), but does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify that 'plaintext' means returning a secret (security-relevant behavior).

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 implied by the name and the band values but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. For a simple getter this is acceptable, but it could state that it only reads the configured key.

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