get_wan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation reads WAN status and lists returned fields, which is adequate. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or that the operation is read-only.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part 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?

With an existing output schema (implied), the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, slight improvement could include mentioning that this is a read-only operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). According to the scoring rule, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('WAN interface status'), and specifies the key attributes returned ('IP, gateway, DNS servers, connection type'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_network_interfaces' which covers all interfaces.

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 description implies usage when one needs WAN status, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'get_network_interfaces' or 'get_dns_config'. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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