get_wifi_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only lists returned fields and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists the key return fields. However, it could benefit from a note about the tool being read-only or safe to call, but the output schema compensates somewhat.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by enumerating the specific data fields returned (SSID, channel, etc.), which is more informative than the empty schema alone.

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' and the resource 'WiFi status', and lists specific data (SSID, channel, connected clients, signal strength). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_connected_devices' which might return overlapping but different info.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving WiFi details but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention any sibling tools for comparison.

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