lan.wol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is mutating and follows a dry-run/token confirmation flow, but it omits permission scope, network reach, failure behavior, and error semantics.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the mutation workflow. Every sentence adds relevant information with no filler.

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 three-parameter network tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and confirmation workflow. It remains thin on parameter semantics and operating context, leaving clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only indirectly explains confirmToken and does not describe mac (required, format) or port (default, target). It adds minimal meaning for two of the three 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 names a specific action and mechanism: Wake-on-LAN magic packet over UDP broadcast. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the surrounding lan.* diagnostic siblings.

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 dry-run/confirmToken sequence explains how to execute the operation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through the WoL purpose and confirmation workflow.

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