get_wifi_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'iw phy' dumps per PHY, which implies a read-only information-gathering behavior, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, mention any permissions/privileges required, or describe error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, especially the concrete list of what the capability dump includes.

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-oriented tool with an output schema, the description covers the key decision-relevant facts: what is returned and from what source. It leaves only minor gaps around side effects and permissions, which are not explicitly disclosed.

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 there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.

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 ... capabilities') and names the exact resource ('Wi-Fi adapter'), then enumerates the returned content (bands, channels, HT/VHT/HE features, interface modes). This differentiates it from sibling getters such as get_wifi_regulatory or get_wlan_usb_drivers.

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 intended use is implied by 'Get Wi-Fi adapter capabilities' and the listed return content, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative siblings. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for capability inspection.

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