get_wifi_bss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists error codes but does not explain them, and omits critical details like whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how pagination works. The behavior is largely opaque.

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 very short (one sentence plus error code list) and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but the error code list could be better structured (e.g., explained or grouped). Conciseness is high, but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., BSS objects with fields). No behavioral context like performance, caching, or limit behavior. For a tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully helpful.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline is 4 (0 params). The description does not detract, but also does not add value regarding parameters.

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 tool retrieves a list of Freebox Access Points WifiBss. The verb 'get' and resource 'list of Freebox Access Points WifiBss' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_wifi_bss_id (which targets a single BSS) and other get_wifi_* tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_wifi_ap, get_wifi_bss_id). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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