get_capture_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that results are namespace-aware, come from the adapter's own radio, reflect the regulatory domain, and describes the output format including the 6 GHz channel-number caveat. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds defining details, and the third gives usage guidance plus an output note. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 query tool, the description is complete: it identifies the adapters, explains the regulatory/namespace behavior, describes the returned fields, and tells the agent how to use the results with capture_scan. An output schema exists, so detailed return-structure documentation is not the description's 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to document. The description adds value by mapping the output semantics to the 'interface' and 'channels' arguments of capture_scan, which helps an agent understand how the result will be used downstream.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('channels each capture adapter can tune to'), and clarifies that capture adapters are monitor-mode interfaces named 'wlanpiN'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_scan or get_wifi_regulatory by narrowing the exact scope.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to pick the 'interface' and 'channels' arguments for capture_scan, giving clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter informational query this is sufficient context.

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