wake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the fire-and-forget nature and clarifies that a successful result only means the packet was sent, not that the machine woke. This is valuable, though it omits details like network requirements or auth/rate-limit behavior.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential behavior and result semantics. It could add a note about return values or when a result might be misleading, but the fire-and-forget clarification already addresses the most important gap an agent would face.

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%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as accepted formats for 'target' or examples for 'broadcast', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Send a Wake-on-LAN magic packet') with a clear resource ('a machine') and even a key mechanism caveat. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_start or docker_restart, none of which perform power-on via magic packets.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over powering on via a hypervisor (e.g., proxmox_guest_start), nor does it note any prerequisites like the target being on the same LAN.

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