get_wifi_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Gathers' suggests a read-only operation slash, and the listed fields indicate what data will be returned. However, it does not explicitly confirm there are no state changes, possible permission requirements, or behavior when no WiFi interface is available.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds three concrete examples of the telemetry gathered. Every word earns its place; there is 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 zero-parameter, read-only telemetry tool, the description is largely complete: it names the primary output fields, which is especially important without an output schema. The only gaps are minor edge-case disclosures, such as behavior when the WiFi interface is absent or unavailable.

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 input schema is empty (zero parameters), so there is no parameter coverage to worry about. The description compensates by listing the telemetry fields returned (SSID, signal strength, radio type, link rates), which gives the agent a clear expectation of output despite the lack of an output 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Gathers' and names a clear resource: 'local WiFi interface telemetry.' It provides concrete examples (SSID, signal strength, radio type, link rates) that make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_gateway_telemetry, which targets a different network scope.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use it when WiFi interface telemetry is needed. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_gateway_telemetry, leaving the agent to infer the scope from the tool name and description.

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