Get Wifi Advanced Settings

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the useful detail that the payload covers channel, bandwidth and working mode, but says nothing about permissions, latency, or whether settings reflect live or pending state. Adequate but thin given the annotations do the safety work.

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 front-loaded clause naming the resource and its scope, with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema and every token earns 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?

For a no-argument, read-only getter with an output schema describing the return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The one missing element is differentiation from get_wifi_basic_settings and get_wifi_all_settings, which the agent must instead infer from the parenthetical field list.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; an empty parameter surface is self-documenting. Baseline 4 applies.

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+resource ('get Wi-Fi advanced settings') and narrows scope with the parenthetical list of settings returned (channel/bandwidth/working mode), which implicitly separates it from get_wifi_basic_settings. It never names or explicitly contrasts with the very close siblings get_wifi_basic_settings and get_wifi_all_settings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_wifi_all_settings or get_wifi_basic_settings instead, and no prerequisites or call ordering. With three near-identical Wi-Fi getters in the sibling list, this is exactly the case where routing guidance was needed and none is given.

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