getInternetInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does signal a read-only operation via 'Get' and partially discloses return content ('WAN settings and connectivity details'), but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens when siteId is omitted/invalid. The read implication is fairly clear, but the full burden is not met.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get internet configuration information') and immediately adds the site scope and content details. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description conveys the core purpose and hints at return contents. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not fully clarify the invocation contract, especially whether siteId is required, or the exact shape/scope of the returned data. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter, siteId, has no schema description and is not listed as required. The description only says 'for a site,' which loosely hints at siteId's role but does not name the parameter, state that it is required, or explain accepted values. With such low schema coverage, more compensation is needed.

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') and a distinct resource ('internet configuration information'), scoped to a site and further clarified by 'including WAN settings and connectivity details.' This distinguishes it from LAN/WLAN/firewall setters at a high level, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to disambiguate.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like getSiteSettings, getLanNetworkList, or getFirewallSetting. No exclusions, use cases, or sibling references are provided, so the agent must guess when this tool is preferred.

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