Scan Surrounding Channels

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, but the description reinforces it with a substantive behavioral claim: the tool only retrieves existing scan results and never triggers a scan. The implementation note about ac_scan_nearby_ap vs surroundingChannelScan adds real operational context. It does not discuss result freshness or whether a scan must have run first, so not a 5.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing note and the implementation caveat. The ac_scan_nearby_ap/surroundingChannelScan aside is somewhat internal-facing, but it is brief and does not bury the actionable content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the description carries little structural burden. It covers purpose, read-only nature, and the correct alternative for starting a scan — sufficient for correct invocation, though it omits any prerequisite that a scan be started first.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (scan surrounding AP channels) and immediately disambiguates scope with '(读取扫描结果)' — this tool reads results rather than initiating a scan. Combined with the explicit pointer to start_channel_scan, an agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not ('本工具只读结果') and names the alternative to use for starting a scan (start_channel_scan). This is clear routing guidance. It does not address the other nearby siblings (get_channel_scan_status, scan_nearby_signals), so it stops just short of full coverage.

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