Wi-Fi status

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context about output granularity and grouping. It explains that data is organized by radio/band and what each entry contains, going beyond the bare annotation without needing to cover destructive concerns.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what is returned, the second gives the routing guidance. Every word adds value and the key information is front-loaded.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: the data content, its structure, and when to prefer this over the closest sibling. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The tool takes no input, and the description's focus on what data is returned is appropriate for a parameterless read-only lookup.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Wi-Fi status), the data grouping (radios by band), and the specific fields returned (access points, SSIDs, link state, connected clients). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool list_interfaces, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 description states exactly when to use this tool: 'Use this rather than list_interfaces when the question is about Wi-Fi coverage or which network a device should be on.' This gives the agent an explicit selection rule and names the alternative.

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