wifi.networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is an active scan, how long it takes, whether location/privilege permissions are required, or how often results can be sampled. 'Survey' hints at active scanning but does not disclose side effects or constraints.

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 front-loaded noun phrase naming the action and the field list, with no filler. It is arguably over-terse, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 zero-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned but omits latency, permission requirements, and any caveat that results reflect only currently visible APs. Adequate but clearly short of 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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument call by framing the tool as a scan rather than a query with filters.

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+resource ('Nearby AP survey') and enumerates the fields produced (SSID, BSSID, band, channel, security), which implicitly separates it from wifi.status/wifi.health that concern the current connection. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 statement of when to run this versus wifi.status or wifi.health, nor any precondition (e.g., needing a scan rather than reporting the joined network). The agent must infer usage purely from the word 'survey'.

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