getGatewayWanStatus

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It describes return fields (WAN IP, DNS, etc.) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a status tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no superfluous content. The first sentence defines the action and return fields; the second adds a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists key return fields (WAN IP, DNS, uptime, link speed, TX/RX rates, connection type). It does not mention error cases or pagination, but for a straightforward status tool, coverage is good.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds only a repetition of the prerequisite for gatewayMac ('Use listDevices') and mentions return values, which are not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'WAN port status and connectivity information for a specific gateway'. It lists specific return fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like getGatewayLanStatus by focusing on WAN.

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 description includes a prerequisite hint: 'Use listDevices to find the gatewayMac.' It implies usage for checking WAN status but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like getGatewayHealth or getGatewayLanStatus.

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