scan_surrounding_channels

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose expected runtime, output characteristics, or any side effects, leaving the agent without insight into how scanning works or what it returns.

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 phrase, making it extremely concise. However, it is essentially a literal restatement of the tool name, providing minimal informative value. It is not verbose but is under-specified, warranting a mid-range score.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema present), the one-line description might be minimally sufficient. However, it fails to explain what 'channels' refers to or how this tool relates to other wireless diagnostic tools, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter details to document or clarify.

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 '扫描周边信道' explicitly states the action (scan) and the target (surrounding channels), clearly conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by using the unique 'scan' verb, though it does not explicitly clarify that these are wireless channels.

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 usage context is provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wireless_monitoring or ping_test, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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