wifi_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially compensates by enumerating the data that comes back (active, SSID, masked), implying a non-destructive read, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the SSID is exposed in cleartext, or the response format.

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 clause stating the resource first (the 3 WiFi networks) followed by the returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the shape of the result; it does list the returned fields but only tersely, leaving the exact format (e.g., what 'masqué' looks like in the payload) unspecified. Adequate for a zero-parameter read tool but not fully complete.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 names the specific resource (the 3 WiFi networks: 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, guest) and the data returned (active state, SSID, hidden flag), which is clearly a read of WiFi status. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like wan_status, connected_devices and the wifi_set_* tools, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wan_status or wifi_get_wpa_key, and no prerequisites or context are given. The read-only nature of a 'status' tool makes the intent somewhat inferable, but the description provides no guidance at all.

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