List visible Wi-Fi networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the operations performed (scan, de-duplicate, select strongest signal/security). This is transparent about behavior and side effects (none), though it does not detail output format or edge cases like no networks found.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and includes all key details without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does and its read-only guarantee. It includes the key output characteristics (strongest signal/security) but could be slightly more explicit about the list format. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. It correctly implies no input is required.

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 action ('Scan visible networks'), the resource (networks), and adds specific behavior (de-duplicate SSIDs, show strongest signal/security). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wifi_status and wifi_connect by focusing on listing all visible networks rather than current status or connecting.

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 for listing available networks but does not explicitly mention alternatives like wifi_connect or wifi_status. The 'Read-only' statement hints at safety but does not provide clear when/when-not guidance or name sibling tools for selection.

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