Get Wan Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific status fields returned, which is useful, but omits freshness, authentication, and rate-limit context. The homepage/TYPE=all note is not clearly behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loads the purpose in the first clause. However, the second sentence about homepage and TYPE=all is opaque and does not clearly earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, it is nearly complete, with only the unexplained homepage note causing minor ambiguity.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add meaning to nonexistent parameters, and the TYPE=all note does not map to any input field or usable parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb 获取 and resource WAN 口实时状态, then enumerates the returned fields (IP/速率/连接数/AC 状态). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_wan_configs or get_sdwan_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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives are given. The trailing note about homepage and TYPE=all is cryptic and does not help an agent select this tool over the many sibling options.

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