toggle_wifi

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, whether it affects 2.4GHz/5GHz radios, persistence, or client impact. This is a significant gap for a mutating toggle operation.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the action it describes.

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 mutating toggle with no annotations and minimal parameter description, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, though the output schema may cover return values. This is insufficient for reliable agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the 'enabled' or 'radio' parameters. The 'radio' parameter with a default of '2g' is especially ambiguous, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('启用/禁用' - enable/disable) and resource (Wi-Fi), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_wifi_ssid, set_wifi_password, and get_wifi_basic_settings.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to enable or disable Wi-Fi, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable only from the action itself.

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