Wake On Lan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that a wake-up packet is sent, without disclosing permissions, network/broadcast requirements, expected side effects, or failure conditions.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It could be marginally stronger with a brief usage or behavior clause, but it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

Complexity is low and the schema/output schema cover parameters and returns. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete for an agent needing to know when or how the action should be applied.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the Wake-on-LAN concept, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: '发送网络唤醒包' (send Wake-on-LAN packet). The purpose is clear and unique among the many configuration/read siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any named alternative.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The name implies the use case, but the description itself offers no selection context.

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