get_hotspot_ssid_passphrase

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 states that the tool reads from hostapd configuration (indicating a read-only operation) and returns an error if the device is not in hotspot mode, which are the key behavioral traits an agent needs. It could go further by explicitly stating 'does not modify any settings,' but the read-from wording sufficiently conveys the non-destructive nature.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an important behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what is returned, identifies the source, and covers the key error condition. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly, and the output schema covers return formatting details.

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 the schema complexity is minimal and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none, and it does not attempt to invent any.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hotspot SSID and WPA passphrase'), clearly stating what the tool returns. The second sentence adds the data source (hostapd configuration), which further differentiates it from sibling hotspot tools that fetch clients or link stats. This is precise and 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 provides clear context for when the tool is usable: it reads from the hostapd configuration and errors if the device is not in hotspot mode, implying this is the tool to use when hotspot credentials are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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