get_wifi_regulatory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' signals a read operation and 'reported by the kernel' identifies the data source, but permissions, side effects, and limitations are not discussed. For a no-argument read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Get' states the action, 'Wi-Fi regulatory domain information' states the resource, and 'reported by the kernel' adds a necessary source qualifier.

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 getter with an output schema, the description covers the invocation basics. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling get_regulatory_domain, and the 'kernel' qualifier only partially resolves that ambiguity.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to add about inputs. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description satisfies that baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Wi-Fi regulatory domain information'), and source ('reported by the kernel'), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_regulatory_domain, but the resource and source qualifier make the core purpose 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?

There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over get_regulatory_domain, get_wifi_capabilities, or other Wi-Fi-related siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent facing overlapping regulatory-domain tools must infer the intended use.

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