router_wifi_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by identifying the underlying source (LuCI status view) and the broad output categories, but it does not discuss response formatting, device filtering behavior, or any operational constraints beyond the annotations.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the content details are presented compactly.

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 read-only tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description adequately conveys what will be returned: radio details, frequencies, and associated clients. It does not specify the exact response structure, but this is acceptable given the low complexity and the annotations.

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 input schema already covers the single optional parameter with a description and example ('Optional wireless interface, for example phy1-ap0'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, but the schema is sufficient on its own.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('LuCI wireless status view'), then enumerates the content: radio details, frequencies, and associated clients. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like router_wifi_overview, router_wifi_clients, and router_wifi_scan even without naming them.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as router_wifi_overview, router_wifi_clients, or router_wifi_scan. The description states what it returns but gives no context for choosing it over similar wireless tools.

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