router_get_wifi_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether 'force' triggers an active scan/re-query, whether results are cached, latency, or whether any permissions are required. For a diagnostic read on a router, that omission matters.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with no filler. It is arguably too short given the unexplained parameter, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The remaining gap is the 'force' parameter and any hint of when this is the right getter among many sibling getters — otherwise the definition is complete enough to call correctly in the default case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, and the description never mentions 'force' — its default, or what forcing does (re-poll the radio vs. return cached state). With one undocumented param, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi radios) and enumerates what is returned: status, SSIDs, channels, operational state. It is distinguishable from sibling getters like router_get_rf_signal or router_get_guest_wifi by naming the radios explicitly, though it never contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to call this versus router_get_rf_signal, router_get_guest_wifi, or the mutating router_set_wifi_radio. The only interesting decision point — the 'force' flag — is not mentioned at all, so the agent has no basis for choosing a value.

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