wlan_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 discloses the scope of data covered (bands, guest network, on/off, SSID, channel, auto-channel, connected devices), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 a single compact phrase with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient but fragmentary, lacking a verb that would make the intent immediately unambiguous.

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-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it scopes which WLAN aspects are covered and notes guest-network and device coverage. The main gap is the absence of any read-only or safety framing, which matters more because no annotations are present.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 – the box's WLAN radio components across 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and guest networks – and enumerates the attributes covered (on/off, SSID, channel, auto-channel, devices). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dsl_status or mesh_uebersicht by resource, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'reads'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list suggests it should be called to inspect WLAN status, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against related siblings such as dsl_status or mesh_uebersicht.

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