get_wan_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the listed outputs give a sense of what to expect. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no side effects occur or mention any prerequisites/failure modes, which would be more transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key outputs. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (IP, uptime, link state). It gives the agent enough to know what the tool provides. It could add a note about read-only behavior, but that is largely inferred and not critical for this simple tool.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema fully covered), and according to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('WAN connection status') and lists key fields (external IP, uptime, link state). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bandwidth_stats or get_system_info by focusing on WAN-specific status.

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 straightforward 'get' semantics and the resource name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_bandwidth_stats or get_system_info, nor are any alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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