get_wireless_advanced

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none: it doesn't confirm this is a read-only operation, state auth requirements, or describe what the response contains. It only lists the settings exposed, which is content rather than behavior.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource name and then compactly lists the covered settings. The parenthetical clarifications (TWT, 'Additional Settings') add useful value without bloat, though the run-on enumeration is dense.

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 values needn't be explained, and the setting enumeration gives good coverage of what's exposed. But the undocumented 'band' parameter and the absence of any read-only/permission clarity leave meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 single 'band' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is completely unmentioned in the description. Given low coverage, the description should explain band selection (default '2g', valid values), but it provides no parameter guidance at all.

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 enumerates the exact settings covered (tx power, MU-MIMO, WMM, airtime fairness, Wi-Fi 6 toggles, etc.), making the resource ('Advanced radio settings') specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_wifi_radio and wifi_info by content scope. However, it never states an action verb — it reads as a field list, so the 'get' intent is carried entirely by the tool name rather than the description.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The read-only intent is only implied by the 'get' in the name, not stated in the description.

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