network_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by noting that the Wi-Fi SSID is included only if queryable, and it specifies the other reported values. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe behavior when network information is unavailable or errors occur.

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 focused sentence that leads with the resource name and immediately lists the returned fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description adequately summarizes the returned network information for a simple status tool, and an output schema exists. However, the undocumented serial parameter and lack of usage guidance prevent the definition from being fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single optional 'serial' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent receives no explanation of what 'serial' refers to, when to provide it, or how it affects the result.

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 identifies a specific resource (network status) and enumerates the concrete returned fields: Wi-Fi SSID, IP address, and mobile data state. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from generic status tools like battery_status, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'returns'.

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 intended use is implied by the name and the listed network-related fields, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like device_info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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