get_wireless_interface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds little beyond 'detailed information'—no mention of output structure, device handling, or any operational side effects. The description is consistent with annotations but provides no additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and structured well, though it sacrifices substantive detail. The terseness is acceptable for a simple read 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?

Given the simple read-only nature, presence of output schema, and safe annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over get_interface) and parameter explanations, so the agent must rely heavily on schema and tool name. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 gives no meaning to the parameters 'name' or 'device'. It does not explain how the device parameter affects the lookup or why it may be null. With no description-level compensation, the agent gets no semantic value beyond raw schema names.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('detailed information about a specific wireless interface'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_wireless_interfaces and generic get_interface. The phrase 'specific' also indicates this is a targeted lookup, not a broad enumeration.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_interface, list_wireless_interfaces, or get_wireless_registration_table. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints beyond the bare statement of what it does.

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