Wi-Fi radio status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait and adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention any other aspects like permission requirements or response format, which could be relevant but are not critical for a simple status query.

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 action first, followed by the read-only clarification. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted effort.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it reports and its side-effect-free nature. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 is empty (coverage 100% but trivially so). Per instructions, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 parameters, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since there are none to explain.

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 verb 'report' and the resource 'Wi-Fi radio state and active Wi-Fi connection names', making its purpose specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like wifi_toggle, wifi_list, and wifi_connect.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention alternative tools or conditions for choosing one over another, leaving this to the agent's inference.

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