internet_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'read-only', which is the primary behavioral trait for a view tool, but it says nothing about what happens on failure, whether it requires any setup, or what the output represents. For a zero-parameter read operation, the read-only disclosure is meaningful but minimal.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is largely sufficient. However, the term 'Internet access profile' is ambiguous about what data is returned (settings, connectivity status, or configuration), which an agent might need to know. It is adequate but leaves the return semantics to inference.

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 there are no parameter meanings to document. Schema description coverage is vacuously 100% with an empty schema. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description adds value by clarifying the resource being viewed.

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 states a specific verb ('View'), a resource ('Internet access profile'), and the read-only nature, which makes the core purpose clear. However, the term 'profile' is vague about what it actually contains, and with dozens of sibling view/show tools in the same domain, it doesn't differentiate what makes this resource unique from, say, show_status or wan_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools that should be used instead (e.g., internet_set for modification, show_traffic for traffic data) nor states any exclusions or context that would select this tool over the many other view tools. The read-only note is the only implicit usage hint.

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