start_channel_scanInitiate a scan of nearby wireless channels to detect surrounding networks and interference, aiding in network optimization and troubleshooting.
启动周边信道扫描
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only repeats the action. It does not disclose that the scan is likely asynchronous, may take time, may disrupt wireless service, or how completion is observed. Essentially no behavior beyond the verb is conveyed.
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 phrase with zero waste and the action stated first. It is perhaps too terse, but there is no filler, hedging, or redundancy to penalize.
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, but for a zero-parameter action tool with no annotations the description should still convey that this is a triggered, likely async operation and how it relates to the status/list siblings. That context is entirely absent.
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 is trivially complete at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.
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?
"启动周边信道扫描" states a specific verb (启动/start) and resource (周边信道扫描/surrounding channel scan), so the agent knows this initiates a scan. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as scan_surrounding_channels, scan_nearby_signals, or get_channel_scan_status, leaving the agent to guess which scan tool applies.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description never says whether this triggers an asynchronous job that must be polled via get_channel_scan_status, nor when to prefer it over scan_surrounding_channels or scan_nearby_signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.