get_device_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns a value (the current mode) and lists the valid values, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose anything about side effects (likely none for a getter), return format details, or edge cases like what happens if the mode is unknown or unavailable. With no annotations, a bit more about the read-only nature could be stated, but the description is reasonably transparent for a simple getter.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Get'), the resource ('current WLAN Pi operating mode'), and the enumerable values. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the exact values that can be returned, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret the result. It could potentially mention whether the mode is retrieved from a config file or runtime state, but that's not necessary for a correct call. The output schema is present, but the description's enumeration of values adds enough 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description's mention of the possible return values ('classic, wconsole, hotspot, wiperf, server, bridge') adds semantic meaning about what the mode values mean, going beyond the empty schema. This is a case where the description compensates for the lack of parameter information by clarifying the result domain.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Get the current WLAN Pi operating mode' and enumerates the possible mode values. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_device_info or get_device_stats by focusing specifically on the operating mode. It could be more explicit about what a mode means operationally, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies when to use it – when you need to know the current operating mode of the device. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but among the large sibling list, get_device_info and get_device_model are candidates that could overlap; no exclusion is given. The context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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