get_reachability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the concrete operations performed (ping, DNS check, internet verification) and implies a read-only diagnostic nature, going well beyond a vague label.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, enumerate behavioral details, and close with an explicit use case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 no-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it does it, and when to use it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is appropriately handled.

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?

States a specific action ('Test') on a specific resource ('WLAN Pi network reachability') and immediately lists what the test covers: gateway ping, DNS resolution, and internet access. This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling network diagnostic tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to diagnose connectivity problems,' giving the agent clear context for when to invoke it. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is stated directly enough for selection.

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