get_wireless_monitoring

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent ('获取' = get). It adds useful context by specifying the returned data (AP count/status), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like real-time vs. cached data or response formatting. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, short sentence in Chinese that immediately conveys the purpose and key content. No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 the tool has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the operation and expected result (AP count and online status). The tool is simple, and the description covers it adequately.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already fully covers the parameter space. The description adds no parameter-specific detail but is not required to; the baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools.

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 states a specific verb '获取' (get) and resource '无线监控' with precise scope 'AP 数量/在线状态' (AP count/online status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling monitoring and AP-specific tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or name alternate tools for related tasks, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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