Статус WAN

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly represents a read-only state query with no side effects, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what the status contains, how connectivity is represented, or whether the result is just an up/down flag or richer data.

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 a single short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's focus. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description is sufficient for understanding that this is a no-input status read of the main internet connection. However, with no output schema and no behavioral detail, the agent does not learn what kind of state data to expect. This is a moderate gap for a tool whose entire purpose is returning status.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to enhance. The description does not need to explain parameters and the baseline of 4 applies well here.

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 resource (main internet/WAN connection) and the purpose (report its state). It differentiates the tool from get_interfaces by emphasizing the primary internet connection rather than the generic interface list. It is slightly terse, but the intent and scope are explicit.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_interfaces or get_system_info. There are no alternatives, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, so the decision is left entirely to inference.

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