list_wireless_blackwhite_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, but the description adds no behavioral context—no mention of output details, pagination, or constraints. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not provide any extra behavioral insight, so a low score is warranted.

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 with no wasted words. It is minimal but not verbose, achieving perfect conciseness.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with an existing output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks usage differentiation, but that is already penalized in the guidelines dimension, so the completeness score reflects the tool's overall adequacy.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description has no additional burden, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists wireless black/white lists, identifying a specific verb and resource. However, it merely restates the tool name with no additional differentiation from similar list tools like list_dhcp_blackwhite_list, so it does not fully reach the 5-level of distinguishing from siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_dhcp_blackwhite_list. The description offers no context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction.

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