fritz_get_radio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Read' does convey a non-mutating operation, but there is no mention of permissions, whether all mesh nodes are covered, or error behavior when the host is unreachable. Adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the returned fields come first, the parameter default second. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is read and how the host defaults. Only minor gaps remain, such as return shape or multi-node behavior, which are arguably outside the description's scope.

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 0% and the sole host parameter has no schema description, so 'host defaults to the master' is the only explanation of its meaning and default behavior. That sentence compensates well for the single undocumented parameter.

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 clear verb, 'Read', and enumerates exactly the resources returned: band steering, channel mode, channels, and transmit power. It does not explicitly name the setter siblings, but the field list maps directly onto fritz_set_band_steering, fritz_set_channel_mode, and fritz_set_transmit_power, making the read/write split inferable.

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 only guidance is 'host defaults to the master', which clarifies the default target but does not say when to call this versus the setters or what prerequisites exist. Usage is implied by the read verb and field list rather than stated.

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