router_wifi_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral note ('without changing wireless configuration') and the iwinfo dependency, but it does not disclose potential scan latency or the shape of the returned network list.

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?

One sentence carries the action, scope, and safety guarantee with no filler. The critical information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description tells the agent exactly what the tool does, how the parameter behaves, and that it is non-mutating, which is sufficient to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the optional device parameter, and the description reinforces that the parameter selects a single interface while omission means all interfaces. This clarifies the default behavior beyond the schema's 'optional' label.

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 ('Scan nearby Wi-Fi networks') plus a clear scope ('one interface or every interface'). This distinguishes it from sibling Wi-Fi tools like router_wifi_overview and router_wifi_clients, which inspect existing state rather than discover nearby networks.

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 makes the use case clear: call when you need to discover reachable Wi-Fi networks, optionally constrained to a specific interface. It does not name alternatives or spell out when not to use it, but the scanning semantics provide enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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