get_wan_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the status is 'real-time' and lists returned fields, but does not disclose potential latency, snapshot semantics, or any side effects. This adds some behavioral context but is not extensive.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output fields. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given no parameters, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key fields. However, the term 'AC 状态' is somewhat domain-specific and could benefit from clarification, though the output schema can fill in details.

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, which meets the baseline of 4. The description provides no parameter details, but none are needed. It clarifies the output scope instead, which is helpful.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving real-time WAN port status with a list of key attributes (IP, rate, connection count, AC status). It is specific and uses an action verb, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling status/getter tools like get_system_overview or get_wan_pppoe_log.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for WAN monitoring, there is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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