wakeonlan_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions sending a magic packet but does not describe the network requirements (e.g., UDP broadcast, port 9, need for node to be in powered-off but connected state). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or failure modes.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a parameter list. It front-loads the action. However, it is perhaps too brief, missing opportunities to add value without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for not balancing brevity with completeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are handled), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about the underlying protocol, network requirements, and when it succeeds or fails. An agent might need additional context to use it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states 'node: The node name,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not specify whether node refers to a hostname, IP address, or specific identifier, nor does it clarify format or constraints.

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 magic packet to a node.' It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('magic packet to a node'), making the purpose immediately clear. This is distinct from sibling tools like start_vm or start_container, which directly power on devices; WOL is a network-based wake mechanism.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include start_vm and start_container for powering on virtual machines or containers, but the description does not explain that WOL is specifically for waking physical nodes that support Wake-on-LAN, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., node must be on same network segment).

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