get_guest_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavior: the PSK is redacted by default and only surfaced with reveal_secrets. It says nothing about permissions, whether the guest network may be disabled/unavailable, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the one behavior that matters. No filler, though the extreme terseness leaves gaps rather than waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed, and the two parameters are at least touched on. The remaining gap is the unqualified domain of the band parameter and any indication of what happens if guest networking is off.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by tying band to 'for a band' and explaining reveal_secrets' effect. However, no valid band values (e.g. 2g/5g) are given even though the schema has no enum, and the default '2g' is left to the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Guest network config') and scope ('for a band'), and the get_ prefix plus the sibling set_guest_network make the read/write split obvious. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'retrieves', so it's clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent infers this is the read counterpart to set_guest_network, which is never named. The one genuinely useful cue is the conditional 'unless reveal_secrets=True', which tells the agent when to flip that flag.

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