wake

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, not read-only), the description discloses gating via 'power effect gate + per-invocation approval,' defaulting behavior for mac and broadcast, and the fact that no KVM driver is involved. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context about how the action is performed.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Some parts are cryptic ('POWER (soft)', 'typed same-path denials, #234'), but the main behavior, gating, and defaults are covered without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers purpose, mechanism, gating, and default values, but it lacks guidance on the count and confirm parameters, expected results, and explicit comparison to sibling power tools. Given no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains mac and broadcast defaults, and references profile indirectly, but count and confirm are left undefined. This is inadequate for a five-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send a Wake-on-LAN magic packet to power the host on.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting it is 'POWER (soft)' and that 'No KVM driver is contacted,' clarifying it is a WoL-based power-on action rather than a direct power or KVM operation.

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 useful context for when this tool is appropriate: it is a WoL broadcast from the server's own host onto the target's L2 segment, and it mentions the power effect gate and per-invocation approval. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context clearly distinguishes it from KVM-driven power actions.

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