send_wake_on_lan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's mutating (but non-destructive) nature is clear. The description adds the fact that it sends a 'magic packet' (a specific WoL protocol), which is slightly informative. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as network scope or lack of confirmation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, two required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It fully states what the tool does, and no further context seems necessary for a straightforward WoL send operation.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (mac and interface), so the schema fully explains their meaning. The description itself adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable since the schema already covers them.

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 action: 'Send a Wake-on-LAN magic packet' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and the scope is implied by the MAC address parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to share this function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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