wifi_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'get', but does not disclose return format, permissions required, or any side effects. The minimal wording leaves behavioral traits largely unspecified.

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 concise sentence that delivers the core message without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential function. It lacks details about what the status includes, but the low complexity makes it reasonably complete for the agent to invoke.

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 the schema is trivially complete. Per guidelines, a tool with 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get wireless radio and interface status' uses the specific verb 'get' with a precise resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like wifi_scan (scanning) and network_status (broader network status).

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 usage as a status-checking tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios, making the usage context clear but not fully explicit.

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