wifi.health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only derived analysis via 'interpretation ⇒ Finding[]', but never says whether it triggers an active scan or reads existing data, whether any privilege is required, how long it takes, or why zero parameters are sufficient (no interface selector).

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?

A single compact line, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the analysis dimensions and return type. The '⇒ Finding[]' shorthand is efficient but slightly cryptic for a reader who doesn't already know the Finding type.

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?

It names the return type (Finding[]) but does not describe what a Finding contains (severity? referenced SSID/BSSID? suggested remediation), and with no output schema that information exists nowhere else. For a zero-parameter, zero-annotation diagnostic tool, one more clause on the output shape would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the implicit claim that analysis is performed over all WiFi state is consistent with the schema. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('WiFi interpretation') and enumerates the analyses it performs (RSSI bands, channel overlap, band mismatch), which distinguishes it from the raw-data siblings wifi.status and wifi.networks. The only weakness is that 'interpretation' is slightly abstract versus a plainer verb like 'diagnose'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the obvious alternatives (wifi.status for raw signal data, wifi.networks for the scan list). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the diagnostic layer rather than the data-collection layer.

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