get_wifi_planning

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

The description includes a list of possible error codes, providing some transparency. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects.

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 concise at the start but is followed by a lengthy list of error codes, which detracts from conciseness. The error codes could be summarized or placed in a separate section.

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 has no parameters but an output schema exists. The description mentions the output type, but it does not explain how the AP is determined or how the output is structured, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Although there are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the description misleadingly implies an AP parameter without providing one. The baseline is 3 for zero-parameter tools, but the misleading aspect reduces the score.

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 it retrieves a list of WifiChannelUsage for a given AP. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_wifi_ap_id_channel_usage, and it ambiguously refers to 'the given AP' without any AP parameter in the input schema.

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. There are no exclusions or context provided about suitable scenarios.

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