get_wlan_pci_drivers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the source (lspci) and scope (built-in Wi-Fi radios), and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose read-only/no-side-effect behavior or any privileges needed.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the source/scope clarification earns its place without 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names the data source, defines the scope, and needs no further elaboration on return values or parameters.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits parameter details because there is nothing to document; the empty schema already covers this fully.

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 ('List') with a precise resource ('PCI/platform wireless devices and their bound WLAN drivers'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wlan_usb_drivers by scoping to PCI/platform and built-in radios.

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 clear context ('Comes from lspci, covering built-in Wi-Fi radios') that implies when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the PCI vs USB distinction from sibling naming provides enough guidance.

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