scan_wireless_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details such as duration effects, interface requirements, or output characteristics. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but no extra transparency is provided.

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 with no filler. It immediately states the action and key resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema and good annotations, so return values and safety are covered. However, parameter semantics are incomplete given 0% schema coverage, and the description does not mention the duration/frequency or any operational context. It is adequate for a simple scan but leaves gaps for the optional parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It only clarifies 'interface' via context but leaves 'device' and 'duration' unexplained. 'Duration' has a default but its purpose is not stated, and 'device' is ambiguous. The description does not sufficiently cover the parameter space.

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 action ('Scans for nearby wireless networks') and specifies the resource ('using the specified interface'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_wireless_registration_table (which reports current registrations) and check_wireless_support (which verifies support).

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 (to scan for networks on a given interface) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It doesn't mention when not to use it or mention related tools.

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