fritz_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the data source (TR-064) and returned fields, and 'state' implies a read, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the scope is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool, though the field list could be slightly more structured.

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 low-complexity read tool, the description gives useful return-field context in the absence of an output schema. However, it leaves the optional host parameter completely unexplained and, with no annotations, provides no safety or auth context.

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?

There is one parameter, host, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions host or explains how it affects the call, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource as WAN state from TR-064 and enumerates what it reports: model, external address, uptime, and update availability. This distinguishes it from siblings like fritz_mesh_status, fritz_list_devices, and fritz_system_log, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus fritz_mesh_status or other status siblings, nor does it state prerequisites such as required connectivity or credentials. The WAN scope implies usage, but there are no when/when-not rules.

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