wireless_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context for clients (reporting which access point they are associated with), but it does not discuss permissions, output format, or other operational traits beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action, resource, and target device scope.

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 tool is a simple read-only operation with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety. The description explains what is read and the device scope, so it is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of parameter identifier format, but output schema richness reduces the overall burden.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'device' parameter refers to an access point, wireless router, or client, which gives some semantic meaning. However, it does not specify expected identifier format (name, MAC, etc.) or otherwise fully document the lone parameter.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (wireless settings) and identifies the target devices: access point, wireless router, or client. It also clarifies that for clients it reports the associated access point. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as configure_access_point or connect_wireless, so it falls short of 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?

The description explains what is read but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like configure_access_point or connect_wireless. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or explicit alternatives, leaving usage context to inference.

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