wifi_toggle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic toggle action and omits details such as whether turning Wi-Fi off disconnects the current network, whether the serial parameter targets a specific device, or what the result indicates. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It communicates the action with maximum economy.

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 toggle tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description is too thin. It doesn't explain the serial parameter, mention expected output, or note side effects like network disconnection. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the absence of behavioral and parameter context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It implicitly maps the 'enabled' boolean through 'be' (on) and 'ki' (off), but the 'serial' parameter is left completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and does not cover all parameters.

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 'Turn Wi-Fi on or off' states a specific verb and resource, making the core action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like network_status or connect_wifi. The name and description together make the tool's role obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_status or connect_wifi. No scenario, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. An agent receives no routing context to choose this tool over related ones.

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