reconnect_wan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that forcing a WAN reconnect is disruptive (causing temporary disconnection), may require permissions, or might not always yield a new IP. The word 'force' hints at abruptness but leaves significant side effects unstated.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word earns its place; no filler 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 disruptive action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks essential context about consequences (e.g., internet downtime), failure modes, or what response to expect. It is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given no params exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 ('Force a WAN reconnect') and the desired outcome ('obtain a new external IP address'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_wan_status, which is read-only.

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 phrase 'to obtain a new external IP address' implies the use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. It provides implied usage but lacks clear context compared to alternatives.

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