fritz_wifi_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact: Wi-Fi passwords are not returned, which prevents a futile credential-lookup attempt. However, it never states that this is a read-only query against the router, whether it hits the device live, or what happens on an unreachable host.

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 sentences with no filler, and the exclusion about passwords is placed up front where it matters. The brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of the missing information noted elsewhere.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out in prose. But with an undocumented host parameter and no annotations at all, the description leaves too much unsaid for a tool that talks to a live router.

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 single parameter 'host' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be supplied — and it says nothing about it. No indication of what host means (router address? target device?) or what the default null implies.

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 names the resource (SSIDs, channels, bands) but has no verb, so it reads more like a list of return fields than a statement of what the tool does. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling fritz_get_radio, which plausibly covers the same channel/band information.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for radio or mesh information. With fritz_get_radio and fritz_mesh_status in the sibling set, the agent is left to guess which one answers a Wi-Fi question.

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