wifi.status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (useful given there is no output schema), and 'Current WiFi link' implies a read-only snapshot, but it says nothing about behavior when no WiFi link is active, platform/permission requirements (e.g. SSID access restrictions), or latency.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists payload fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the field list is the most important piece of context and it is present. The remaining gap is the disconnected/error case and any permission caveats, which an agent would want before relying on it.

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 nothing to document; the description correctly does not invent any. 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?

The description names a specific resource ('Current WiFi link') and enumerates the exact fields returned (SSID, BSSID, band, channel, RSSI, PHY rate, quality), which implicitly separates it from wifi.networks (a scan of nearby APs) and wifi.health. It lacks an explicit verb and never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred 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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related siblings wifi.networks and wifi.health. An agent must guess whether this reports the connected link only or also nearby networks, and whether to prefer wifi.health for diagnostics.

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