get_profiler_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavior: it is a read-only status query reporting whether the profiler is running plus SSID, channel, and interface. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the 'Get'/'Returns' language makes the non-mutating nature clear.

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 short sentences: the first states the action, the second lists the returned values. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important 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 status getter with an output schema available, the description covers everything an agent needs to know to call it correctly. The lack of usage guidance is the only gap, but it does not undermine completeness for this simple tool.

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 and the input schema fully documents that, which is the baseline-4 case. No parameter description is needed, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter detail.

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 a clear resource ('current status of wlanpi-profiler'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: running state, SSID, channel, and interface. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_profiler and stop_profiler.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_service_status or the profiler start/stop tools. It neither states preferred contexts nor rules out any sibling, leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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