router_get_guest_wifi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a retrieval operation and importantly notes that force=True bypasses a Network Guard safety check, but it does not explain what Network Guard protects, what risks the bypass entails, or any permission/auth requirements.

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 short and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears first, followed by the only parameter's meaning. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and the non-obvious force parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, which is acceptable because an output schema exists, but it could be more complete by clarifying when force is appropriate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only defines force as a boolean with default false. The description compensates by explaining that force=True bypasses the Network Guard safety check, which is meaningful semantic information beyond the schema. The remaining gap is that it does not say when an agent should actually set force to true.

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 a specific verb, 'Retrieves,' and a specific resource, 'Guest Wi-Fi,' with useful scope details: dual-band status, SSIDs, and isolation settings. This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation sibling router_set_guest_wifi and is more specific than a generic Wi-Fi query.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Retrieves current ... Guest Wi-Fi status,' so an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to router_set_guest_wifi. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over router_get_wifi_networks, and it gives no guidance on when the force option is warranted beyond the safety-bypass note.

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