wifi_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the units (dBm) and the derived qualitative rating, which is real behavioral value. The critical gap is what happens when the machine is not on Wi-Fi — error, empty result, or message — which is left ambiguous for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

A single sentence with the measurement, units, rating scheme, and applicability condition all front-loaded. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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-argument read tool with no output schema, naming the return values and units is close to complete. The only missing piece is the non-Wi-Fi failure mode, which matters for result interpretation but not for invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any inputs and correctly spends its words on output semantics instead.

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 resource (Wi-Fi signal strength) and pre-describes the return shape (dBm value plus strong/ok/weak rating), which no sibling tool covers. It is clear against siblings like interfaces or ip_config by virtue of the wireless-specific metric, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clause 'if the computer is on Wi-Fi' communicates a precondition, implying this is a wireless-connectivity diagnostic. However, it offers no when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as interfaces or ping, and no statement about what to do for wired hosts.

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