check_internet

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool is non-interactive ('without touching the screen') and diagnostic in intent ('diagnose', 'shows whether'), and it describes the measured dimensions. It does not explicitly promise zero side effects, but the diagnostic framing makes this mostly unambiguous.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and key constraint, the second adds the usage trigger and expected output dimensions. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter diagnostic with an output schema, the description covers the core call flow and result semantics well. It is slightly incomplete only because the device parameter is unexplained and no alternative tools are referenced, but these are minor given the explicit 'start here' guidance.

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 only parameter, device, is optional and has zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With no compensation in prose, an agent gets no help on whether to pass a device id, what the default means, or how the target device is selected.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('diagnose') with an explicit resource ('the phone's internet connection') and enumerates the checks (radios, traffic, DNS). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_device and phone_health, which target different aspects.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the entry point for 'my internet isn't working', providing a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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