homebutler

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

Without annotations, description carries full burden. Mentions 'magic packet' (helpful technical detail), but lacks disclosure of failure modes (unreachable machines, non-WOL hardware), success indicators, or network requirements (broadcast domain limitations).

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. 'Wake-on-LAN' and 'magic packet' are precise technical terms that earn their place. Front-loaded with action verb. Appropriate length for 2-parameter utility.

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?

Adequate for simple tool with complete schema, but gaps remain: no output schema means description should ideally indicate return value (success confirmation?), and network prerequisites are unmentioned.

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 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds 'Wake-on-LAN' context which explains why MAC addresses (target param) are required, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or broadcast address usage beyond 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?

Excellent specificity: 'Send' (action) + 'Wake-on-LAN magic packet' (method) + 'machine' (resource). Clearly distinguishes from sibling container operations (docker_restart) and system queries (system_status, alerts) by explicitly naming the WOL protocol.

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?

Context is clear (use to wake sleeping hardware), but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., target must support WOL, same network segment) or distinguish from 'docker_restart' for starting containers.

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