get_wlan_usb_drivers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the output contains an 'adapters' field and an 'interfaces_scanned' field, and it explains the meaning of the empty-adapters case (PCI/on-board radios). The verb 'List' implies read-only behavior)Skip 4 rather than 5 because it does not address failure modes, privilege needs, or the fully-empty case (interfaces_scanned == 0), but the key behavioral nuance is covered.

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, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by teaching the agent how to interpret an edge case and route to the correct sibling. Every word contributes.

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 listing tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, which radio classes it applies to, and how to interpret the empty-adapters result. Nothing material 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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip the baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to document. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description mentions output fields ('adapters', 'interfaces_scanned') rather than parameters, which is appropriate here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('List') plus the resource ('USB-attached WLAN adapters') and the delivered information ('their bound drivers'). The scoping to USB clearly distinguishes it from its sibling get_wlan_pci_drivers, so an agent can tell them apart from the first sentence alone.

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 names the alternative tool and gives a concrete condition for switching: if 'adapters' is empty while interfaces_scanned > 0, the radios are PCI/on-board and the agent should call get_wlan_pci_drivers instead. This is direct, actionable routing logic with no inference required.

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